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

To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 694 posts

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#101

Post by fatjokes »

tcbawo wrote: post #97
fatjokes wrote: post #35

It sounds like the real reason for inequality is that the pay for "janitorial work" has simply decreased. The article makes a point to say that the pay is the same, accounting for inflation, but it's disingenuous not to highlight total comp, which Ramos had significantly less of than Evans.

Lack of a medical safety net and sick days hits low income workers very hard. Every unpaid day sets them much further back.

Those factor into total comp. Ie. they can buy health insurance and take unpaid time off, which would be equivalent to a significantly lower salary.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#102

Post by mnx »

adwhit wrote: post #90
sw00pur wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like if you had two cars and the government took one of them. "What do you need two cars for?"

More like if you had 40 cars and the government said they were going to charge you 90% tax for your 41st. In other words, nothing like that.

400k is not quite 40 cars level of income though. 4 million might be more in that range.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#103

Post by adwhit »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #76
fatjokes wrote: post #35

It sounds like the real reason for inequality is that the pay for "janitorial work" has simply decreased. The article makes a point to say that the pay is the same, accounting for inflation, but it's disingenuous not to highlight total comp, which Ramos had significantly less of than Evans.

The reason for inequality is that people are not equal. The work they do produce is not equal in value. More people can do a janitor's job, and/or do without a janitor, so the value of a janitor's work is less. More supply, elastic demand, means lower price point. Through technology, some people are able to produce much more than others, so inequality is inevitable unless there is a balancing force (aka taxation).

Indeed, the value of keeping toilets sanitary is far greater than that of creating the next web app.

"This work is essential to the health of the population, but because of something to do with marginal economics and supply and demand and weak labor laws and class power and reserve supply of labor, I don't have to pay a proper wage, or even treat them like human beings!"

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#104

Post by kazagistar »

jfaucett wrote: post #21

This story reminded me of something I've often wanted to know when people start talking about economic inequality metrics, namely, how many of those in poverty when entering the workforce will remain in poverty their whole life? To me the longitudinal information here is the most significant metric i.e. what does wealth movement look like for individuals over their lifetime. Virtually everyone in their teens and earl…

Economic mobility is fairy well measured, and has been decreasing for decades. The US tends to not rank terribly well, putting a bit of a damper on the whole "land of opportunity" thing

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#105

Post by 0xbear »

mathiasben wrote: post #36

The underlying cause of this whole issue is the changes in tax policy instated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, previously income was taxed at higher rates unless deductions were utilized which forced those earnings back into the economy creating jobs funding research, etc.. As it's become easier to retain more earnings there's little incentive not to optimize an entire corporation solely with the purpose of generating…

Says a person who doesn't (yet?) make $400k a year. This too shall pass, once you start making more money.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#106

Post by vadym909 »

Good point - in the race to offer superb benefits to its best employees, companies made it harder for themselves to directly hire low skill and low pay employees. After all you can't afford to offer free massages and laundry to the guys delivering groceries for you making $15/hr or the receptionist making $20/hr.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#107

Post by dexterdog »

kirsebaer wrote: post #16

Gail Evans worked as a janitor at Kodak in the 1980s. "She received more than four weeks of paid vacation per year, reimbursement of some tuition costs to go to college part time, and a bonus payment every March... A manager learned that Ms. Evans was taking computer classes while she was working as a janitor and asked her to teach some other employees how to use spreadsheet software to track inventory... Less than a…

So, IOW they cherry-picked what was likely the most driven of the janitors in the past and compared it to a random one today. That seems honest.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#109

Post by mathiasben »

winstonewert wrote: post #99
mathiasben wrote: post #36

The underlying cause of this whole issue is the changes in tax policy instated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, previously income was taxed at higher rates unless deductions were utilized which forced those earnings back into the economy creating jobs funding research, etc.. As it's become easier to retain more earnings there's little incentive not to optimize an entire corporation solely with the purpose of generating…

Income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s, so I submit the underlying cause cannot have been a policy change in 1986.

true, the effectiveness of this scheme was slowly eroded beginning shortly after it was enacted. '86 was the knife blow that killed it for good with it's "revenue neutral" rebalancing of the "loopholes" and deductions available for reinvestment tax treatment.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#110

Post by acidburnNSA »

aswanson wrote: post #94
tnzn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone need more than 400k a year for himself in the first place though ?

To invest in 2 hippies starting a personal computer company in 1976. To invest in 2 guys in starting a search engine in 1996. To invest in a kid in Harvard making a social network in 2004....

True, but also for multiple homes, fancy cars, world travel, etc.

When I worked at a hardware store we had a brochure we could order in a gold-plated Ducane grill for $4 million.

That recent graph showing the top 1% having a 6% wealth growth rate is wholly unsustainable for any society. So there's something to be said for trying to level it off.

Post reply on HN