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

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

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 289 posts

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

#271

Post by nv-vn »

kingnothing wrote: post #218
bluGill wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent tax cuts will take a few years to filter though the economy to workers - at best. Thus it is incorrect use results to judge any policy until many years have passed. This is the nature of most things that the government does, and why it is really hard to figure out what is best. There are ways to make judgement that are not based on results, but they always subject to their own biases.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

Yes, but nobody really believes in trickle down economics. The entire name of "trickle down economics" came from people who were against supply-side economics and named it based on their (mis)understanding of the theory. Around half of economists today seem to be on the supply-side side (notably, the Chicago School and the less mainstream Austrian School).

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

#272

Post by nv-vn »

noobermin wrote: post #15
pradn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people barely have enough to live on, let alone invest. If wages were higher in real terms, they're lives would be better. Plus, investing is risky. Not everyone has the ability to weather business downturns without tapping into savings.

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.…

To be fair, the reason so many people can't afford a $400 emergency is because most people don't save anything in the bank. And this is not exclusive to working class folks. A lot of people do a terrible job budgeting/saving/investing because they weren't taught to do so. $20 in the bank every month would do plenty to give you a little bit of financial leeway.

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

#273

Post by SequoiaHope »

test6554 wrote: post #229
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You leaving is a risk I’m willing to accept to help millions of Americans access health care.

As long as you don't have to lift a finger or reach into your own wallet, eh?

I work every single day to try to build a world where we get socialism voluntarily. I’m an author and I write about how we can build a world where helping people is so easy we choose to support it without government intervention. I’m a libertarian socialist, which is a term I encourage you to look up. My specific angle is robotics, and I not only work a full time day job making robots in Silicon Valley, but I also bust my ass at home to make better open source robotics platforms to enable this world I claim we can create.

Are you so sure I won’t pay or work to create the world I advocate for?

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

#274

Post by hansthehorse »

israelisreal wrote: post #76
isostatic wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All paid for by those who don't go into the military–industrial complex, but instead pay enormous taxes to fund it. The kid fixing broken windows does well too. The U.S. accounts for 35% of the world's defence spending, more than twice that of Russia and China together.

You are paying for it by your service, which only 1% of the population serves. I have nothing but respect for the military and those who serve. People need to stand behind the troops or in front of them. People sleep well at night because of the military and their sacrifice.

Former military here - American service men and women haven't defended American freedom in over 75 years. Time to let that line go I would think.

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

#276

Post by kamaal »

padobson wrote: post #133
acchow wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're also part of the problem. Startups offer very little equity because they're able to find someone they want that will take it. Were you coerced into this agreement?

I agree with this. Every offer I've gotten from an early-stage startup was market salary and <1% equity, often when I was engineering hire 1-5. I had conversations with founders and told them that if they couldn't meet my market rate, they had to give me 3-5% of the company. They all said no, so I did to. Then I'd get my market rate from a bank or a security company or went back to contracting for multiple clients.

Unless the company is going to be the next Google, those kind of deals don't make sense at all. But thats' generally lottery so you can keep that aside.

The other part is I have seen people fall for titles. 'Senior VP of X', while in reality you neither good exposure into org management, and let your tech skills go down the drain at the same time.

Often because of these things people lose their prime years. In most cases working for a big company, and then having a good savings and investment driven lifestyle will put you ahead of most of this kind of work opportunities.

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

#277

Post by pimmen »

rayiner wrote: post #225
pimmen wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However their relatives can sit on boards, so a senator's spouse would be fair game. And they can use the paid board gig to make money between terms. Susan Bayh, ex senator and governor from and Indiana married to another senator, sat on multiple boards between her own political terms and while her husband was in office (also while she was governor). She's been on at least 14 boards in total: https://en.wikipedia.org…

Are you suggesting that spouses of Congressmen shouldn't be permitted to sit on corporate boards? (And presumably, should be excluded from any of a range of careers in the private sector.)

No, I'm just claiming policy makers can be influenced by corporate boardrooms. I don't really have a solution for it, and I can't really say that I know whether or not this is a big problem that needs solving, but is there legal ways for companies to use board positions to affect policy makers? Yes.

Personally, I don't think it's the worst. I would rather they had to do this than get huge retirement packages as they do in my country after their service. Also, if their spouses can make a living being involved in business so politicians can't use sympathy for their poor family as leverage to get higher compensation that would be good too. But we can't handwave the issue of corporate influence over politicians however we choose to deal with this.

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

#278

Post by jampekka »

israelisreal wrote: post #39

My daughter is going into the Air Force, getting her degree at night for nothing in 2.5 years, going back in as an officer, effectively doubling her income all the while not paying for food, lodging, medical/dental. She plans on doing 20. She'll likely marry an Air Force officer, and two people retiring at 39/40 YO will have a combined retirement of just under 100k (today's money), all the while not wasting precious…

"There's room at the top they're telling you still, but first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill"

https://youtu.be/iMewtlmkV6c

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

#279

Post by gbacon »

dunpeal wrote: post #221
gbacon wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've thrown a significant percentage of our lives, and they've only thrown in money Money saved, borrowed, or inherited represents a significant percentage of someone’s life. Even if you deny this, the money in someone’s pocket in the present represents an enormous percentage of that person’s future life. Put yourself in the shoes of the owner who took risk up front. Yes, you took some as well, but at any time you c…

> Everyone wants equity. Lots if not all employees feel like the deserve it, even the person who answers the phone and could be most easily replaced. This is not a moral question of who deserves what. Compensation is a business issue, not a moral one. The question is whether OP is getting as much as he could get elsewhere, and the answer is likely "no". If startups could compete fair and square with non-startup comp,…

Nowhere did I suggest any compulsion or moral duty. In fact, I wrote the opposite, namely that employees may walk away at any time.

The point of looking at it from the owner’s perspective is to elevate thinking above “It’s so unfair! Harumph!” that is so often the case. As you wrote in your reply, it’s a business decision. Imagining oneself as the owner makes this plain.

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

#280

Post by astrodust »

bluGill wrote: post #212
astrodust wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you took all the money a person on a limited income spends on Netflix, restaurants and games they could scrounge up enough money to buy a trailer home in the middle of Nebraska just before they die of old age. The reason people don't save every penny is because pennies don't matter any more. The price of housing, medical care, and education is becoming so overwhelming that everything else pales in comparison. This…

It has never been that easy. "Poor starving college student" was a saying back then because college students barely had any money.

It's a relative thing. Students back then didn't have to pay three hundred bucks for a textbook and they didn't have to go so deeply into debt they could've bought a Ferrari.
Post reply on HN