51–60 of 157 posts
So what caused the change in 1973?
[http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/productivity-a...]
I'm sure that this is not the whole story, but I bet it's a big part of it.
The title and the tone of the OP are a bit inflammatory for my taste, but the data and graphs from the research paper are eye-opening: most economic growth in the US over the past three decades has indeed gone to the top 1%, and particularly to the top 0.01%, leaving everyone else behind.[1] Here's the money shot: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9013427/Sc... However, rather than debate the causes o…
The core of the problem isn't any sort of tax setup, it's the foundation of our economy. The first employee of a startup usually gets less than 2% equity. Apple made $700k per employee in a single quarter. Our whole economy is set up to funnel money to the top. We need a new way of structuring corporations to change that.
Why is there no talk about the dramatic increase in the supply of workers over the last 40 years? Globalization has brought millions out of poverty and those people are now competing with Americans when they wouldn't before. It makes sense from an economic standpoint that the price of labor would not rise when the supply is increased and is likely the cause of income inequality in the US.
pretty much this. its why there was a lot of h1b visa abuse. top 0.01% doesnt want to pay a lot for tech workers but the demand is high, so increase the supply of tech workers.
The title and the tone of the OP are a bit inflammatory for my taste, but the data and graphs from the research paper are eye-opening: most economic growth in the US over the past three decades has indeed gone to the top 1%, and particularly to the top 0.01%, leaving everyone else behind.[1] Here's the money shot: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9013427/Sc... However, rather than debate the causes o…
For every problem there is a solution which is simple, elegant, and completely wrong. So here's my attempt: 1. Remove subsidies including tax writeoffs like depreciation. Either an asset brings value or it doesn't. 2. Tax revenue not profits. Either you make a profit selling a thing or you don't. Fancy tricks like buying an item from a fully owned subsidiary and selling it at a loss to compensate for profits from ser…
You mean, make Apple a Chinese company because being an American one is no longer viable? A VAT would be more reasonable, as it taxes value actually added at each point in the system, rather than a flat tax on each point in the system as you are proposing.
Why is there no talk about the dramatic increase in the supply of workers over the last 40 years? Globalization has brought millions out of poverty and those people are now competing with Americans when they wouldn't before. It makes sense from an economic standpoint that the price of labor would not rise when the supply is increased and is likely the cause of income inequality in the US.
And in response to the overload of cheap labor, the central banks have been printing currency -- which means that people who own lots of equity end up with more money than they had before. (more money with the same assets means suddenly your assets are worth much more money) Also "hoarding" implies intent and capability. From all I can see, what's happening is the natural consequences of lifting billions of people ou…
Ah yes, billionaire CEOs and investors have lifted millions out of poverty and so the market has rewarded them with steadily increasing incomes. But wait! I thought the market only cared about profits!? Why would it reward them for lifting millions out of poverty?? Is it possible that the modern American political system has been bent to the exclusive benefit of the rich at the expense of everyone else? Nah.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that if you set a minimum wage that is higher than the real value of the work performed, it means those jobs just simply won't exist anymore.
The real value of a lot of products and services is more adjustable than your statement would lead someone to believe. Reality is absolutely not an efficient marketplace that immediately culls jobs and workers the moment a certain price of labor threshold is reached.
Why is there no talk about the dramatic increase in the supply of workers over the last 40 years? Globalization has brought millions out of poverty and those people are now competing with Americans when they wouldn't before. It makes sense from an economic standpoint that the price of labor would not rise when the supply is increased and is likely the cause of income inequality in the US.
> It makes sense from an economic standpoint that the price of labor would not rise when the supply is increased and is likely the cause of income inequality in the US. So why are CEO salaries still going up? Is there not increased competition for C-level positions in companies from globalization? If not, why not?
Why is there no talk about the dramatic increase in the supply of workers over the last 40 years? Globalization has brought millions out of poverty and those people are now competing with Americans when they wouldn't before. It makes sense from an economic standpoint that the price of labor would not rise when the supply is increased and is likely the cause of income inequality in the US.
> It makes sense from an economic standpoint that the price of labor would not rise when the supply is increased and is likely the cause of income inequality in the US. So why are CEO salaries still going up? Is there not increased competition for C-level positions in companies from globalization? If not, why not?
- CEO jobs require high work experience
- work experience in aggregate over all workers is constrained by the number of positions available at a company
- number of positions available at a company is typically not affected by an increase in supply of workers
CEO positions grow more valuable as time goes on because companies grow more valuable as time goes on. CEOs have higher impact when their companies are more valuable.