Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling' • Hacker News Board

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#171

Post by gbacon » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #144

malvosenior wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia: > Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is an American political advocate who is founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes all tax increases. A Republican,[4] he is the primary promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", a pledge signed by lawmakers who agree to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net…

When that means that government also has fewer resources available to enforce labor laws, that's a very anti-labor stance.

We have to take your money so those other scoundrels won’t take your money!

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#172

Post by s73v3r_ » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

peacetreefrog wrote: post #81

AlimJaffer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With what money? Between student debt, stagnant wages, the 'gig' economy, and limited mobility - how is anyone supposed to save a reasonable sum to invest in even when taking into account the joys of compound interest?

Taking out a bunch of student loans in order to join the gig economy isn't nec the most sensible path to take.

I guarantee you that no one set out with that course of actions in mind.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#173

Post by 3pt14159 » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #88

methodover wrote: post #79

The allocation of profits in startups, at least, feels... problematic. I was the #2 engineer hire when I was hired five years ago. Since then, we haven't become super successful -- yet -- but we're at least at breakeven. We have three engineers and we're working on a huge new project that hopefully will really grow the company. I have 1.8% equity. Sometimes when I'm working late or working on the weekend, which is of…

This is a common discussion item here at HN. Really it only makes sense to work at a startup in the following scenarios: you are founder, you are new and need experience, you are getting paid very well, or you don't care about money and love the work. Trying to get rich as a non founder is a fools game.

Well, this isn't completely true. Founders are much more likely to make ten or a hundred million than first hires, but first hires are at least as likely to make $500k to $3m as founders, especially in net present value accounting terms, and not even adjusting for risk adjusted returns or opportunity cost differences.

Most startups don't get to first hire. Most startups have founders that don't just make nothing, they lose money. First hires don't lose money.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#174

Post by sk5t » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #146

Johnny555 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't need the money, then don't take it. Problem solved. If it's such a small amount of money, then self-fund. The VC is thinking "I'm paying this guy's salary to work on something that may or may not ever pay for itself", and he's got dozens of companies that he's funding and they won't all hit it big... or even survive. Or, another option, don't throw everything you have at a company -- join a later stage s…

1.8 is non trivial (assuming no shenanigans) back in 2000 I had .5% in a uk vc backed company if we had been taken out I would have been a millionaire IRL not just on paper :-(

It's not enough for five years after little dilution.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#175

Post by thomasmeeks » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

methodover wrote: post #103

tramGG wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried asking for more equity? Negotiating new terms is fine if you feel you deserve it and are passionate about your work.

I'm pretty sure the equity I have is already incredibly generous for an employee. But yes, I did bring up the issue a couple weeks ago. He doesn't believe we're in a position to go to the board and make any changes to stock compensation at this time. He thinks we should first figure out how to accelerate (with this new project) and then we'd be in a better position to ask for more stock for employees from the board.

So your description of his response really struck a nerve with me. The founder is the leader of the company, not the board, and the founder(s) regularly give up equity in order for a company to be successful. Yes, it might require board approval, but passing the buck to the board like that is inappropriate.

The matter at hand is: does he believe you deserve more equity at this point in time? If yes, then commit to fighting for you (and if equity is somehow impossible, explore other options). If no, explain why & how to improve.

To be fair, nobody is perfect in every interaction, and there are a million rational reasons why a founder would sidestep a question like that (terrible board relationship, you or others at the company have a hard time hearing negative feedback, distracted that day, etc.). If you feel like the matter wasn't resolved to your satisfaction, it is worth bringing back up.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#176

Post by s73v3r_ » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

peacetreefrog wrote: post #106

sctb wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please read the guidelines and then take care to comment civilly and substantively here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Really disagree with these comments (not as much this one as the other one in this thread) being flagged and removed. IIRC the line was basically, "many people have much more to invest then they claim, but they spend it on netflix, brunch, concerts etc instead" Sure, obv won't apply to everyone and not everyone will agree, but seems like a reasonable sentiment that should at least be allowed to exist on the thread. D…

I strongly disagree, mainly because that line of thought has no basis in reality, and allowing it to persist like this encourages the dehumanization of the lower classes. It's not a reasonable sentiment in the least.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#177

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

vturner wrote: post #129

Why doesn't the stock market act as a balancing system to low wages? Lowering wages implies higher efficiency thus resulting in higher profits which ultimately end up in "investors" pockets. Why are these "investors" not the common American "worker" whose wages are low? Why has the market not created such an instrument to supplement the "worker" who has low wages but could ultimately profit from the ever-increasingly…

They are. Well most likely. It is hard to track down the real numbers, but somewhere around 60% of all stocks are owned by mutual funds, and the primary investors in those funds are retirement accounts.

However you do need to have a retirement account to share in this, the lower your wage the less likely you are to have such an account.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#178

Post by germinalphrase » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #70

dragonwriter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low Depressing turnout by demoralizing constituencies that lean to the other side and, particularly on one side, outright voter suppression, is something that the rich (both independently and acting through the major parties) fund lavishly, so why wouldn't they get blame when turnout is low?

Most people who choose not to vote aren't being systematically repressed. They're just too indifferent and/or lazy to participate.

Gerrymandering is anti-democratic.

Crafting campaign finance laws in such a way that those with more wealth can disproportionally affect election outcomes is anti-democratic.

Voter suppression/disenfranchisement in the form of impediments to voter registration, voter ID laws, felon disenfranchisement, misinformation about voting process/procedures, closure of DMV offices, etc. are all anti-democratic tactics used by political parties to reduce/refuse voting access by constituents.

If a party can make voting inconvenient/inaccessible to a targeted population they can win electoral outcomes that do not match constituency desires.

Voter suppression is real. Voter suppression works.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#179

Post by noobermin » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #36

noobermin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, this isn't a moral argument (at least it need not be), practically people cannot invest in anything and yield an actually substantial return. Almost half(E) people in the US cannot weather a $400 emergency without going into debt, how could they possibly have enough money to invest for either themselves or their children? This arguably would be only valuable for people in the middle class to upper middle class.…

I don't disagree with you, but the obvious counter is that you are mixing causation and correlation. You would have to show that people are not investing because they have no extra money and not that they are choosing to use their money now instead of investing. Realistically it is likely a combination of those two and therefore the comment that started this thread has a point that teaching people about investing can…

Has there ever been a real precedent for a society where a majority of them provide for themselves by investing in the stock market over living off of a wage?

And I bet it is a combination of the two. Just I think it is probably 0.1% of because people don't do something they've generally never done and 99.9% that real wages haven't kept up with inflation.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#180

Post by s73v3r_ » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #21

ams6110 wrote: post #5

People need to be taught about investing and the time value of money from an early age. If you invest in some low-cost index funds, you share in the profits. And if you start early, it doesn't have to be a big sacrifice.

What Americans need is more emphasis on creating and sticking to budgets, recognizing true needs versus wants, and how to save. Investing can come later after the budget which includes some attempt at savings. Many people who enter a program to learn how to budget quickly learn how all the monthly bills in their life add up quickly to consume their income. Examples are spending too much on cell and internet service p…

If you think that the source of the problem is people wasting money on other things, then you don't have a sufficient grasp on the problem to be able to issue that kind of advice.