Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#41

Post by dv_dt »

Retric wrote: post #37
eldavido wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For my money I would much, much rather own shares of stock in my retirement plan than have a state- or corporate-backed pension. Have you seen the movie Casino? That actually happened, the Teamsters pension fund came under control of the mob. What about Illinois, which is facing a $120 billion pension shortfall due to decades of accounting gimmicks? What about the UAW guys, who were counting on pensions from the big…

And I vastly prefer the reverse. Pensions avoid the classic hopping you die before you run out of money. Further, money enough to cover the basics is vastly more important than 'extra'.

Pensions aren't portable - in the modern labor market where people are expected to have multiple emplyers and possibly even career arcs, that's a pretty limiting. Personally, I feel that too many pensions plans (private and state) are at financial risk and have seen too many companies go under (wiping out pensions), or severely cut back (changing their payouts and coverage). Really, I'd prefer something more portable than even a 401k. Rolling over to an IRA after you change companies is ok, but I'd really rather have savings separated from employers to a greater degree even when it's accumulating.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#42

Post by IncRnd »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #29
eldavido wrote: post #11

There is so much wrong with this article I hardly know where to begin. First, it presumes a 19th-century separation of "capital" and "labor" where "capital" is a bunch of greedy pigs trying their damndest to exploit labor, with little crossover between the two groups. The modern reality is way more complicated. Almost every member of "labor" has some form of pension, 401(k), IRA, or personal stock holding, and even i…

80% of the value of stocks are held by the top 10%. The fact that 401ks which were initially retirement plans for executives have permeated labor is an indictment of the system. Capital owners have removed defined benefit plans forcing labor to jump into the same boat. But make no mistake about who really benefits from that convergence and who forced it in the first place.

"The fact that 401ks which were initially retirement plans for executives have permeated labor is an indictment of the system."

Reference please. The Revenue Act of 1978 created a provision, section 401(k), for employees to defer income as future compensation.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#43

Post by s73ver »

jpttsn wrote: post #38
afthonos wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on context, it can be important. Too often, corporate behavior is explained by saying that the “only responsibility” of a corporation is to “maximize shareholder value”. The words “only responsibility” are not descriptive, but prescriptive, meant to end debate about the morality of an action. In those contexts, it's useful to know that this is a fiction and a debating trick, not a description of law, natura…

If I say the responsibility of a corporation is to replant the rainforest, or to expand human wisdom, or to entertain the public with a compelling narrative of underdogs beating titans, then I'm clearly just expressing my opinion. The question of what a company "ought to do" is obviously a question of values, not fact. It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" Of cour…

At the same time, it's also incredibly tiring to hear shitty behavior by companies excused by saying "shareholder value!" as if that excuses all of it. The people running those companies are still adults, who are still fully responsible for their actions. They should not be excused by something that doesn't actually exist.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#44

Post by joeyo »

dv_dt wrote: post #41
Retric wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I vastly prefer the reverse. Pensions avoid the classic hopping you die before you run out of money. Further, money enough to cover the basics is vastly more important than 'extra'.

Pensions aren't portable - in the modern labor market where people are expected to have multiple emplyers and possibly even career arcs, that's a pretty limiting. Personally, I feel that too many pensions plans (private and state) are at financial risk and have seen too many companies go under (wiping out pensions), or severely cut back (changing their payouts and coverage). Really, I'd prefer something more portable…

  > Pensions aren't portable - in the modern labor market   
  > where people are expected to have multiple emplyers and 
  > possibly even career arcs, that's a pretty limiting.
Which is the cause and which is the effect? Do workers want to have multiple employers and career arcs?

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#45

Post by arcbyte »

eldavido wrote: post #33
VikingCoder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost every member of "labor" has some form of pension, 401(k), IRA, or personal stock holding Citation needed. I believe "almost every" is pure hyperbole. A quick search found a poll indicating 52% of Americans own stock. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stocks-... If you have better information, I'd like to see it, please.

Without a citation, that seems right, in the narrowest sense of "owning single shares in a company". Keep in mind that "owning stock" isn't well-defined though, that could mean (a) own individual shares (narrowest), (b) owns shares or ETFs (broader), (c) owns mutual funds. But that still doesn't address my point. It's a lot bigger when both private sector, and public, pensions are included. This issue is near and dea…

Born, raised, and living in Illinois and I'm seriously looking at leaving the land of Lincoln. Chicago is ruining this state.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#46

Post by krick »

skywhopper wrote: post #40

I'm disappointed that two other large pieces of the economic puzzle are left out: workers and government. Corporations have more cash than they know what to do with? That means that 1) wages are too low, and 2) taxes are too low. More specific to Apple's case, the hoarding of cash overseas to avoid paying US taxes on it is one of many poisonous symptoms of our international capitalism. The amount of tax Apple would p…

I guess this may be not popular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with legally avoiding taxes. It might be wrong that the whole system is convoluted enough that this would be very hard for your average honest citizen, but easy enough for resourceful corporation, if anything. But avoiding taxes seems only logical, if you think you can manage and allocate resources better than your government. And rest assured: somebody always does.

So the reward inequality of the people who make wealth seems a larger concern here. But then, if everybody makes lots of money in capitalistic system -- nobody really does.

So, no, I'm pretty sure that system is corrupt in its essence, but is working just as intended too.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#47

Post by tomjakubowski »

arcbyte wrote: post #45
eldavido wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a citation, that seems right, in the narrowest sense of "owning single shares in a company". Keep in mind that "owning stock" isn't well-defined though, that could mean (a) own individual shares (narrowest), (b) owns shares or ETFs (broader), (c) owns mutual funds. But that still doesn't address my point. It's a lot bigger when both private sector, and public, pensions are included. This issue is near and dea…

Born, raised, and living in Illinois and I'm seriously looking at leaving the land of Lincoln. Chicago is ruining this state.

I was born and raised in Illinois too, but live in California now. Mind explaining how the third-largest metro economy in the country is ruining our state?

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#48

Post by rebootthesystem »

skywhopper wrote: post #40

I'm disappointed that two other large pieces of the economic puzzle are left out: workers and government. Corporations have more cash than they know what to do with? That means that 1) wages are too low, and 2) taxes are too low. More specific to Apple's case, the hoarding of cash overseas to avoid paying US taxes on it is one of many poisonous symptoms of our international capitalism. The amount of tax Apple would p…

> That means that 1) wages are too low, and 2) taxes are too low.

No, it does not. There is no correlation there at all.

Not one person I know who has ever run a business would make that connection. Why? Because they understand business reality vs. the fantasies floating around out there.

I'll give you just one easy-to-assimilate example:

Economic collapse Q4 of 2008. I was able to keep about 20 people employed because we were profitable enough prior to this event to, as many like to say, hoard cash. I hoarded cash like there was no tomorrow. Why? Because I had played that game and learned a few valuable lessons.

Without this war chest I would have been forced to lay off all twenty of them and probably even a few more people. Instead I made the decision to keep everyone employed and, yes, lose money for over a year (2009 and 2010 were horrible). We used that money to pay people's salaries and even more hoarded money to actually make the decisions to devote that time to develop new products. In fact, it got so bad that I actually paid a few salaries with credit card money for a few weeks. It was awful, but I was committed to keeping everyone working.

We came out of the recession drained of cash but with new products and a team that was as loyal to the company and the mission as I was to them.

Higher taxes or ridiculous wages (like $15/hr minimum wage) would have certainly put a bunch of people on the street despite my best intentions.

My standard recommendation to anyone who thinks they understand the economy is to write down their ideas/ideology today. Then mortgage the house, take out a loan or do whatever you need to do to self-fund a business (no playing with other people's money here). Work your ass off to grow it to a non-trivial business. Check what you wrote every year for ten years. Somewhere between five and ten years you are almost guaranteed to ask "What the fuck was I thinking?". And that's when you'll understand.

"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" --Mark Twain

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#49

Post by dv_dt »

joeyo wrote: post #44
dv_dt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pensions aren't portable - in the modern labor market where people are expected to have multiple emplyers and possibly even career arcs, that's a pretty limiting. Personally, I feel that too many pensions plans (private and state) are at financial risk and have seen too many companies go under (wiping out pensions), or severely cut back (changing their payouts and coverage). Really, I'd prefer something more portable…

> Pensions aren't portable - in the modern labor market > where people are expected to have multiple emplyers and > possibly even career arcs, that's a pretty limiting. Which is the cause and which is the effect? Do workers want to have multiple employers and career arcs?

I don't think they necessarily want to, but I think it's often needed for reasons mostly tangential from pensions. But if you accept that multiple jobs/careers are a reality, then pensions plans, as traditionally constructed, don't do much for workers.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#50

Post by Retric »

dv_dt wrote: post #41
Retric wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I vastly prefer the reverse. Pensions avoid the classic hopping you die before you run out of money. Further, money enough to cover the basics is vastly more important than 'extra'.

Pensions aren't portable - in the modern labor market where people are expected to have multiple emplyers and possibly even career arcs, that's a pretty limiting. Personally, I feel that too many pensions plans (private and state) are at financial risk and have seen too many companies go under (wiping out pensions), or severely cut back (changing their payouts and coverage). Really, I'd prefer something more portable…

Fractional pensions are a thing, the minimum can be a low as 3 years.
Post reply on HN