Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#101

Post by conanbatt » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 1:33 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #98

throwaway91111 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are intended to raise revenue. I don't see how making the tax code nearly incomprehensible enough people assign moralistic qualities to exploiting it fully is a working system.

See Milton Friedman’s lecture on the subject of convoluted tax codes. Spoiler: it gives government power because they can play favorites.

The one I saw is pretty funny, and he mentioned mostly how the left and right have different goals and fight each other. The left wants higher rates on the rich and the right wants to reduce it so it creates exemptions whenever it can.

"The problem with a simple tax code is that the left and the right dont trust each other, and they are both right".

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#102

Post by 2close4comfort » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 1:35 AM UTC

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…

Pensions have largely gone away, replaced with 401k's which for the average person will not have the yield a pension would and just makes business' look like they care without actually making any real investment in a person's future. The stock market is largely a rich man's game as you have to have the money to invest so their are only the ones' on top who really have the money to put into a system and can afford others to manage it to ensure financial gain. The 401k is worthless if you don't know how to manage it and the employer is only to eager to outsource that to lowest bidder who taxes people with fees for doing nothing and promising even less.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#103

Post by 2close4comfort » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 1:42 AM UTC

objectivistbrit wrote: post #57

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…

This is a really weird comment. I re-read the article and it only mentions labour vs capital once, in passing. Mostly it talks in terms of owners vs managers, and the principal-agent problem. You refer to "greedy pigs" and exploitation making it sound as though the author is anti-capitalist, but that does not seem to be the case). (I was curious enough to look him up. He's a finance professor at HBS. That probably ex…

It think it was more that the author is a supporter of real capitalism where you actually have to possess a conscience. But I think the population has a whole has abandoned this notion either out of ignorance or apathy. This is my lament for the current and future state of capitalism.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#104

Post by ensignavenger » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 1:58 AM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #66

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…

> Almost every member of "labor" has some form of pension, 401(k), IRA, or personal stock holding Objectively speaking, it does not seem like that is the case for even half of workers. https://www.ebri.org/publications/benfaq/index.cfm?fa=retfaq...

That data is almost 20 years old now. I don't know how much it has changed since then, though. It also only deals with 'private sector' labor, whereas the OP specifically mentioned state employees in the pool of 'labor'.

EDIT: Wait... The chart title says 1979-2013, which is what the chart says... but the source citation says it came from 1979-1998... which is why I thought it was 20 years old... not sure where they got the rest of the data from.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#105

Post by Retric » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 2:09 AM UTC

haltingthoughts wrote: post #61

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'.

Annuities do exist and you can buy them with IRA/401k savings.

While true, they generally don't have government backing and can thus fail fairly easily.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#106

Post by holdthetab » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 2:34 AM UTC

BeenThere888 wrote: post #18

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…

Why should the poor give a damn about the stock market, though? Every time a bubble pops, they're the one's left holding the tab. How many of those 401ks and IRAs were wiped out and the "owner" left with nothing after Madoff, housing bubble, etc. IMO, it's a fools errand as a figurative little person on the totem pole to babysit the wealth of the rich who leave them dangling in front of the fan that just had shit spl…

why would the people who have no money to give be the ones held to account? if your political views can't pass a simple sniff test like that, what hope do you have of enacting them?

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#107

Post by eu90h » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 2:43 AM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #104

emodendroket wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost every member of "labor" has some form of pension, 401(k), IRA, or personal stock holding Objectively speaking, it does not seem like that is the case for even half of workers. https://www.ebri.org/publications/benfaq/index.cfm?fa=retfaq...

That data is almost 20 years old now. I don't know how much it has changed since then, though. It also only deals with 'private sector' labor, whereas the OP specifically mentioned state employees in the pool of 'labor'. EDIT: Wait... The chart title says 1979-2013, which is what the chart says... but the source citation says it came from 1979-1998... which is why I thought it was 20 years old... not sure where they…

The data from 1999 onward is estimated from a few sources, as explained at the bottom of the page here: https://www.ebri.org/publications/benfaq/index.cfm?fa=retfaq...

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#108

Post by wdewind » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 2:54 AM UTC

ue_ wrote: post #72

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…

>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. If you're talking about Marxism, you're misunderstanding the division between bourgeoisie and proletarians; stocks, pensions, 401k, whatever, does not count as means of production; the division is between the proletarians…

> If you're talking about Marxism, you're misunderstanding the division between bourgeoisie and proletarians; stocks, pensions, 401k, whatever, does not count as means of production; the division is between the proletarians, who almost always have nothing to sell but their labour-power and the bourgeoisie, i.e a class of people who own the means of production.

Can you explain what you mean by this? If you own stocks, pensions, 401k, whatever, you pretty definitionally have more to sell than just your labour-power right? I guess I don't understand how it's not gradated ownership over the means of production.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#109

Post by ACow_Adonis » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 3:00 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #86

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…

That's why pensions should be provided by the government, as one of the things paid for by all those taxes you paid over the years. Which is why I get really mad when the current Australian government tries to spin it that retirees are 'bludgers' and are a drain on the system when they draw their (paltry) pensions. No, these people paid 40 years' worth of taxes to the government, and being supported by the government…

There's multiple issues there:

1) there's spartan explicit connection between the taxes paid then and the pensions paid now: most governments did not put that money in an explicit infrastructure or investment fund, the revenue from which explicitly pays for pensions. Additionally, we generally do not (in Australia) connect how much you paid in with how much your taking out, so we have no way to even ethically or materially judge whether someone really is our isn't "taking out more than they put in"

2) in the real economy, pensions are not paid for by your past taxes, but from future income derived from the level of capital investment and infrastructure and the labor force at the time of your retirement. The Australian pension system contracts a population of post boomer children to pay a debt they were never party to agreeing to pay: and chicken the general demographic numbers, aren't liable to be able to pay it given the relative size of the two populations.

3) from a normative point if view, the Australian system is quite generous (not as generous as some of the European ones). It is, dare I say it, unsustainable. Not only do you have to adjust for the pensioner discounts and additional payments offered to get it's true value, but it is much greater in volume compared to all other dole payments. With no means testing for your primary property, it's both a subsidy to the rich, encourages over investment in property, and has basically set us up to escalate inter generational war fare.

My advice to everyone is to assume it won't be there for anyone not already collecting it.

Don't get me wrong, I have some sympathy for the boomers who thought it would be available. But, they got to effectively overconsume by not putting sufficient away to invest for it, and in a competition between economic reality vs "what I'm supposed to get on my defined benefit pension", reality will win every time. Government isn't god.

Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

#110

Post by ACow_Adonis » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 3:05 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #82

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'.

You can buy an immediate annuity that has guaranteed income until you die with different options: A) guaranteed life B) guaranteed life of you or your spouse C) guaranteed life with a return of the unused amount D) guaranteed life with a guaranteed x year certain Of course the different options you choose affect your monthly payout.

And effectively all guarantees (be they government or private) are probably better understood as guarantees conditional on institutional survival risk.