Live data from Hacker News

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

voxeu.org

121–130 of 476 posts

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

#121
post #2

I think this plays into the current social unrest as well. People have been trying to separate the looters and protestors, but they seem to completely ignore the extreme inequality that exists throughout the US, especially in this period of high unemployment. People at the bottom have it bad, very bad. Being ignorant of that problem is just going to make it worse. Lashing out at fancy retailers in fancy neighbourhood…

Politicians, police, corporations, media... the institution is trying to pushing the idea that protestors == looters. And therefore the protests should be quelled. Several states even went so far as to declare, without any evidence, that the majority of the people in the protests were from out-of-state troublemakers... which makes no sense. Even more fitting, President Trump called the protestors thugs and terrorists…

I was under the impression that Trump called the rioters thugs and terrorists which is a little different.

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

#122

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.

It's not impossible, anyone and everyone can become rich, it's just that we don't have a common definition of rich.

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

#123
post #76

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.

That has not worked, capital has moved elsewhere to low tax domiciles.

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

#124
post #117
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expatr…

Taxes are not punishment. Taxes exist because a certain amount of wealth is required to maintain a state. I understand that the financial/business world has been trying to convince people otherwise since the mid 1970s, but they are still as wrong today as they were then. Tax “fairness” is therefore simple. He who earns the most should pay the most. You cannot expatriate dollars. The currency is issued by the state an…

"Tax “fairness” is therefore simple. He who earns the most should pay the most." - I don't like the idea of tax fairness as what is fair to you may not be fair to other person. I would only concur with your second statement on the absolute value (numbers) and not on percentage basis.

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

#125

TIL: NAIRU. Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment refers to a theoretical level of unemployment below which inflation would be expected to rise. It was first introduced as NIRU (non-inflationary rate of unemployment) by Franco Modigliani and Lucas Papademos in 1975, as an improvement over the "natural rate of unemployment" concept which was proposed earlier by Milton Friedman. In the United States, estimate…

It’s a fascinating thing to realize that policymakers consider zero unemployment to be too low. The economy is built on the idea that some people at the bottom will be desperate enough to keep minimum wages low.

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

#126
I fail to see this in High Tech Companies, let's take FANG for example, by various measure we can call these monopolies, now if you look at their worker's earning, they earn by far the highest in the industry for same type of job. So that seems to have failed the premise of this argument "Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power:"

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

#127

In almost all USA industries, there is increasing amount of consolidation. The top 4 companies' in almost any industry has a larger share of the total market: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/03/26/too-much-of-a-... Some consolidation is natural, but a huge part is caused by mergers and acquisitions (M&A) fulled by Private Equity. The M&A benefits the shareholders of participating companies at the expense of c…

Watching Super Size Me 2 you realize that the same thing happened to the chicken industry. It’s frightening. It’s like we have a democracy (so far) and under that a lot of smaller authoritarian organizations that are hard to notice or dismantle. Some of the farmers were basically slaves, in huge debts to these companies way of running things. Unbelievable.

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

#128
I came across this very relevant article earlier today: "Computers Don't Kill Jobs, People Do: Technology and Power in the Workplace"[0] It was written in 1996 but many of the observations affirm these trend:

> Technology undoubtedly contributes to productivity, which should, of course, make more available to all. But buried (not too deeply) in the very innovations that increase productive capacity of the workforce are factors that serve to deny the workforce the bargaining power to gain their share of the output.

It argues that the people who drive innovation and technological advancement in the workplace tend to do so for the benefit of a small minority (i.e. the owners/buyers rather than the worker/users) which itself contributes to an increasing inequality of power.

[0] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/1047971

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

#129
post #126

I fail to see this in High Tech Companies, let's take FANG for example, by various measure we can call these monopolies, now if you look at their worker's earning, they earn by far the highest in the industry for same type of job. So that seems to have failed the premise of this argument "Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power:"

In a bubble, yes. But if you compare them to the top paying jobs of prior generations (say finance jobs of 20 years ago) they are actually pretty paltry wages in comparison. Plus, 250K in San Francisco where the average home is over a million dollars is not really that great.

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

#130
Marx literally wrote about this in Das Kapital over a 100 years ago laying out the mechanisms of capitalist consolidation:

The splitting-up of the total social capital into many individual capitals or the repulsion of its fractions from one another, is counteracted by their attraction. This last does not mean that simple concentration of the means of production and of the command over labour, which is identical with accumulation. It is concentration of capitals already formed, destruction of their individual independence, expropriation of capitalist by capitalist, transformation of many small into few large capitals. This process differs from the former in this, that it only presupposes a change in the distribution of capital already on hand, and functioning; its field of action is therefore not limited by the absolute growth of social wealth, by the absolute limits of accumulation. Capital grows in one place to a huge mass in a single hand, because it has in another place been lost by many. This is the centralization proper, as distinct from accumulation and concentration.

The laws of this centralization of capitals, or of the attraction of capital by capital, cannot be developed here. A brief hint at a few facts must suffice. The battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities. The cheapness of commodities depends, coeteris pribus, on the productiveness of labour, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals beat the smaller. It will further be remembered that, with the development of the capitalist mode of production, there is an increase in the minimum amount of individual capital necessary to carry on a business under its normal conditions. The smaller capitals, therefore, crowd into spheres of production which Modern Industry has only sporadically or incompletely got hold of. Here competition rages in direct proportion to the number, and the inverse proportion to the magnitudes, of the antagonistic capitals. It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists, whose capitals partly pass into the hand of their conquerors, partly vanish. Apart from this, with capitalist production an altogether new force comes into play - the credit system.

In its beginnings, the credit system sneaks in as a modest helper of accumulation and draws by invisible threads the money resources scattered all over the surface of society into the hands of individual or associated capitalists. But soon it becomes a new and formidable weapon in the competitive struggle, and finally it transforms itself into an immense social mechanism for centralization of capitals.

Post reply on HN