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

Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#211

Post by TheIronYuppie »

raldi wrote: post #53
guelo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the left-wing not want to improve a poorly run program?

Because of donations and assurances of bloc voting from the entities profiting from the inefficiencies and corruption, just like the other side.

That's a bit reductive. There's another thought - the government program might feel poorly run, but there are in fact a million contingencies that they have to pay attention to, that a startup doesn't; or the government program is poorly run, but it's better than the alternative (a profit seeking corporation driving down costs, but, ultimately, providing worse service at the expense of returns - see prisons).

I guess it all comes down to your definition of "poorly run".

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#212

Post by CalChris »

mc32 wrote: post #183
CalChris wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, I'm greedy, quite greedy. But Enron wasn't just greedy, it was a criminal organization. As such, people went to jail and it went out of business. The job losses at Enron were 4000 but they were 85,000 at Arthur Anderson, its accounting firm. Wilson enabled this although to be fair, he didn't foresee it. The CA energy crisis was the result of mid-90s neoliberal hubris. Like supply sid…

From that Wiki article you linked (just about everyone gets blamed) And to note, some of the contracts were signed by Davis: >Some critics, such as Arianna Huffington, alleged that Davis was lulled to inaction by campaign contributions from energy producers.[28] In addition, the California State Legislature would sometimes push Davis to act decisively by taking over power plants which were known to have been gamed an…

Again, these are opinions and in Huffington's case not disinterested opinions. She ran for governor in the recall.

The fact remains that the CA energy crisis was enabled by Republicans for the benefit of Ken Lay's Enron Corp. Then when it happened Republicans complained loudly and political advantage of their created crisis.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#213

Post by omegaworks »

pessimizer wrote: post #193
omegaworks wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one on the left wants more military spending. It's worth it to pay attention to voices most critical of the biggest, most broken government program. The rest is quibbling over minutiae.

And as far as I can tell, no one on the right wants to get rid of the military.

Oh honey, you haven't met some of the "mercenaries/private military contractors can solve everything" libertarians.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#214

Post by omegaworks »

cadlin wrote: post #144
omegaworks wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one on the left wants more military spending. It's worth it to pay attention to voices most critical of the biggest, most broken government program. The rest is quibbling over minutiae.

I assume you're talking about the Federal Insurance program (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). Because a lot of people on the left want to spend more money on those.

Those are some of the most functional, most loved programs in this country. Social security is our sovereign wealth fund, and only comes into crisis when it is tapped for purposes it wasn't intended for. Medicaid/care allows a profitable, private health insurance industry to exist. These programs basically saved capitalism in this country, be grateful.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#215

Post by notacoward »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #209
notacoward wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That graph shows the exact opposite. From near-parity with the output figures in 1947-1972, wage/compensation struggle to stay about half that in 2005-2014. In other words, the workers are not benefiting in proportion to productivity.

It's still highly correlated for most of recent history, meaning for most of the last 50 years. 2005 to 2014 is only a nine year period, and even during this period, compensation growth has been well half (0.9 vs 1.5) of output growth.

Beyond the obvious cherry-picking, that's some pretty serious statistical gamesmanship you're into. Maybe you should consider this little thing we call exponential growth, or "compounding" to a finance type. Let's look at the "Hourly Compensation (Output Price)" figures, which are the most favorable to your argument.

* For 1947-1972 it fell behind output by 0.2% per year, which sounds small, but that's 4.6% for the entire period.

* In 1972-1994 workers fell behind by another 4.1%

* In 1994-2005 (half the time) workers fell behind by another 2.9%

* In 2005-2014 (even less time) workers fell behind by another 4%

Over the entire span, workers' compensation has only increased 85% as much as productivity. More importantly, the gap is growing, not shrinking. Even using yearly figures to make differences look small, then grouping those numbers into oh-so-convenient unequal intervals, can't turn this into evidence of your original claim that wages have kept pace with productivity growth.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#216

Post by CryptoPunk »

CalChris wrote: post #210
CryptoPunk wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poverty rates have failed to decline during almost the entire era of rapidly increasing social spending. There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, and it is all at the beginning, when the economy and populace had still not become accustomed to large social welfare programs, and when the size of these programs was much smaller than it is now. If social programs reduced povert…

So you are going from You mean regressive policies that hurt the poor, right? to There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, .... Cutting the Poverty Rate from about 22% to about 12% is hurting the poor . Got it.

The poverty rate was declining for decades before the War on Poverty began. After its start, when its programs were still small, it continued declining for a decade. Then the decline, which had been in place since long before the WoP began, ended, and has never again resumed, despite social spending only growing.

More extreme poverty began to increase decades into the War on Poverty, when social programs were far larger than they were at the beginning.

And in addition, there has been a major increase in single parenthood, which a lot of research indicates is largely a result of government low income subsidies making single parent households more economically viable. Single-parent households are associated with much worse socioeconomic outcomes that increase future poverty, incarceration and government dependency.

So my conclusion is that these policies are most likely harming the poor, by wiping out the poverty reduction that would otherwise be happening, and moreover, that there is very good reason to doubt that they're "progressive".

>>Cutting the Poverty Rate from about 22% to about 12% is hurting the poor. Got it.

The poverty rate was declining before the War on Poverty began. There's no reason to conclude that it is responsible for the continuation of that trend for a decade longer. There's plenty of reason to blame it for the cessation of that trend of declining poverty rates, rising wages and low rates of single parenthood.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#217

Post by CryptoPunk »

notacoward wrote: post #215
CryptoPunk wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still highly correlated for most of recent history, meaning for most of the last 50 years. 2005 to 2014 is only a nine year period, and even during this period, compensation growth has been well half (0.9 vs 1.5) of output growth.

Beyond the obvious cherry-picking, that's some pretty serious statistical gamesmanship you're into. Maybe you should consider this little thing we call exponential growth, or "compounding" to a finance type. Let's look at the "Hourly Compensation (Output Price)" figures, which are the most favorable to your argument. * For 1947-1972 it fell behind output by 0.2% per year, which sounds small, but that's 4.6% for the e…

Isn't picking out a short period with the largest gap between compensation growth and output growth the cherry picking?

85% is a very high level of correlation. The original comment claimed:

>>But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore,

Labour productivity growth obviously does cause wage gains. The data shows that the primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth has been a slowdown in labour productivity growth, not a decline in labour's share of revenue.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#218

Post by notacoward »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #217
notacoward wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond the obvious cherry-picking, that's some pretty serious statistical gamesmanship you're into. Maybe you should consider this little thing we call exponential growth, or "compounding" to a finance type. Let's look at the "Hourly Compensation (Output Price)" figures, which are the most favorable to your argument. * For 1947-1972 it fell behind output by 0.2% per year, which sounds small, but that's 4.6% for the e…

Isn't picking out a short period with the largest gap between compensation growth and output growth the cherry picking? 85% is a very high level of correlation. The original comment claimed: >>But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, Labour productivity growth obviously does cause wage gains. The data shows that the primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth has been a slowdown in labour…

> The original comment claimed

It's possible for both the original claim and your counterclaim to be untrue. Two lies don't make a truth. The original claim of no relationship is untrue. So is your "tracking very closely" counterclaim. There's a relationship, but it's not very strong and it's growing weaker.

> Labour productivity growth obviously does cause wage gains.

Cause? Without qualification? Not so fast, hoss. Sometimes productivity growth translates into wage increases. Other times either can change independently. The whole point - what those data really show - is that the relationship has been weakening.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#219

Post by CryptoPunk »

notacoward wrote: post #218
CryptoPunk wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't picking out a short period with the largest gap between compensation growth and output growth the cherry picking? 85% is a very high level of correlation. The original comment claimed: >>But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, Labour productivity growth obviously does cause wage gains. The data shows that the primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth has been a slowdown in labour…

> The original comment claimed It's possible for both the original claim and your counterclaim to be untrue. Two lies don't make a truth. The original claim of no relationship is untrue. So is your "tracking very closely" counterclaim. There's a relationship, but it's not very strong and it's growing weaker. > Labour productivity growth obviously does cause wage gains. Cause ? Without qualification? Not so fast, hoss…

> So is your "tracking very closely" counterclaim.

85% is a strong correlation. I even posted the graph for others to make up their own mind. Calling my statement a lie, when it's based on your own subjective determination of what constitutes a close correlation, is hostile and unfair.

>Cause? Without qualification? Not so fast, hoss. Sometimes productivity growth translates into wage increases

Wage growth can only come from productivity growth on any sustained basis, so yes, the latter caused the former.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#220

Post by zo1 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #117
zo1 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the other playbook, where effectively every excuse always boils down to "we need more money" or "we're underfunded".

So why not perform studies and actually look into whether the inefficiencies and performance problems are caused by insufficient funds? Oh wait, studies require funding too, so we can't have those. I mean do you honestly believe that a Republican would propose increasing funding of a non-military, non-security agency if they were shown hard evidence that said agency's problems were in fact caused by lack of money? An…

Ironically, I believe that we should be throwing money at problems, even as a Libertarian. Government program funding was what turned me into a libertarian. I couldn't for the life of me reconcile how we can task an entity (the government) to fix a problem, and then look idly-by as its agents throw table-scraps at the program that is instituted to complete that task.

E.g. Crime in inner-city neighbourhoods. It's 2017, we should be able to put cameras (facial-recognition and license-plate-reading) at every street corner, inside every store, track every single gang-member, and subsequently institute curfews for them that would probably eliminate 90% of crime. But, we don't. We skirt around the issue, we try fix it using "round-about" "ways, means, incentives" and all other manner of things instead of tackling a problem head-on with near-unlimited funding. If it was up to me, I'd ramp up funding to a ridiculous degree, and then start scaling back after the problem is solved. Not the other way around, whereby the program and society as a whole has to beg politicians and the rest of us to fund things properly.

Post reply on HN