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

Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

voxeu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 476 posts

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#101

Post by _2d30 »

rfulop wrote: post #76
lanevorockz wrote: post #59

Trying to break the conditioning here but government should always tax in a way that it incentive WORK. The way things are Wealth is no longer being produced, so those who have it will be on top because income will never be enough to prop you up. Therefore we should want a Growth market so that more wealth is produced and risk averse people will still be rich but more people will become as rich as them. To resolve In…

I'm with this argument. Capital gains should at least be taxed as much as earned income.

But then if you want to help people build wealth that don’t have it, you make it much harder.

I really feel like people need to look into land taxes a la Henry George: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

Taxing things like capital gains differently or implementing a generic wealth tax can actually hurt those we want to help to build wealth as well as incentivize things like expatriation of wealth. Can’t expatriate land.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#102

Post by PeterStuer »

lanevorockz wrote: post #59

Trying to break the conditioning here but government should always tax in a way that it incentive WORK. The way things are Wealth is no longer being produced, so those who have it will be on top because income will never be enough to prop you up. Therefore we should want a Growth market so that more wealth is produced and risk averse people will still be rich but more people will become as rich as them. To resolve In…

The 80's called. They want their 'trickle down' back.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#103

Post by brenden2 »

Aunche wrote: post #95
brenden2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pandemic demonstrated that luxury retail is non-essential (you can still buy your Gucci bags online). When luxury retail was closed the world did not fall apart. Nobody is protesting because they can't shop at the Apple store.

Plenty of people complain that not enough stores like Target open up in low income areas and riots are only going to make this worse.

For someone in desperation all I hear is further reason to riot and loot. Nobody cares about these people, and politicians keep going on TV saying how they're going to put everyone in jail or shoot them.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#104

Post by _2d30 »

jorblumesea wrote: post #90

Could it be that Larry Summers, proponent of deregulation and globalization, could have contributed to the destruction of the American worker? Ironically, no mention of those policies here.

Depends so much on what deregulation you mean. If you mean deregulating from an antitrust perspective, sure that could be blamed. I don’t know specifically of him doing so, though, it’s completely possible.

However, have you ever tried to open or run a small business? The regulations are INSANE especially if you want a physical location. Go try and build housing in the city that needs it most. Good luck. Free the fucking markets a bit. It works.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#105

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

rapsey wrote: post #89
altvali wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you back that up with data? I'm curious to know by how much and how you reached that conclusion.

I would like to see someone back up the data with regards to automation. Why is the burden of truth on the other side? Fact of the matter is Chinese factories that produce the world's gadgets employ millions. This is reality and not some mythical fully automated factories. Globalism made the very poor in China/Mexico/etc. richer, created their middle class and it made the very rich in US/EU even richer at the cost of…

I don't think offshoring is irrelevant now. With that said, I think there was a bigger push towards offshoring in the past than there is today. Now automation is playing a larger role. As an example, the company I work for has been offshoring positions since the 90s, while simultaneously and incrementally automating other positions. There isn't much left to offshore, but we're still automating work.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#106

Post by phkahler »

JamesBarney wrote: post #91
sokoloff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is PE fueled by? IMO, in large part by zero interest rate policies.

I think the cause and the effect is reversed. There is more money for investment now than ever before (due to an aging population, and increased inequality) which leads to both a low/zero interest rate, and lots of money for PE. If it was an artificially low interest rate we'd see wage inflation, as opposed to just asset inflation.

Interest rates are artificial. IMHO they are currently way too low. I dont even think the absolute rate is what affects the economy, its rate of change in interest rates that causes change. Declining rates stimulate the economy while rising ones act as a brake. The absolute level of the rates determine where money flows and inversely affects the price of big things like housing and cars. Low rates lead to inequality and hardship. These are just thoughts and observations, I would love to build a good mathematical model.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#107

Post by danmaz74 »

lanevorockz wrote: post #59

Trying to break the conditioning here but government should always tax in a way that it incentive WORK. The way things are Wealth is no longer being produced, so those who have it will be on top because income will never be enough to prop you up. Therefore we should want a Growth market so that more wealth is produced and risk averse people will still be rich but more people will become as rich as them. To resolve In…

It's impossible for everyone to be rich. This doesn't mean we should punish the rich for being rich, but you aren't going to reduce inequality by increasing the number of rich people - you need to increase the income of low and average earners compared to the rich.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#108

Post by scottlocklin »

No sane person should ever listen to Larry Summers again. This weasel looted America; even looted Russia with his pals at Harvard -anything he has to say that isn't a groveling apology for his life of treachery and destruction isn't worth listening to.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#109

Post by brenden2 »

pydry wrote: post #72
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is in the times of the French revolution, the elite lived only mere miles away from the angry poor, within striking reach of their wrath whereas now the elites can move to super safe heavens, isolated from the mess they created and suffer no consequences from the angry masses. Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett can move with their families to some private island in the Caribbean and wait while things cool d…

I could see Louis 16th's failed flight to varennes being repeated in a different form. It wasnt a lack of technology that stopped him, it was a man recognizing him and arresting him. Part of the problem was that he left it too long to attempt fleeing.

They didn't have helicopters, underground bunkers, and air force one.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#110

Post by jimmaswell »

sokoloff wrote: post #50
tryptophan wrote: post #24

[flagged]

I don't think anyone believes that "owning land entitles you to eternally increasing prices". I think most people accept that owning land/buildings and renting it out to other people is an appropriate type of economic transaction to allow.

I'm skeptical of its implementation. So much land is bought up by a small number of entities with a lot of money then rented out at a profit indefinitely with little to no value added. My parents have been paying rent for 15 years and the only involvement from the landlord has been fixing the heater once or twice after having to be harassed to do so. In this situation he's essentially a parasitic middleman for property taxes.

There are legitimate reasons people may want to rent instead of own, but it seems to me that it needs to be curtailed to some extent. Maybe controls on how much property can be rented or owned without occupying so that people who want to live in a house without sending half their paycheck into a black hole all their lives have a better chance.

Post reply on HN