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

251–260 of 476 posts

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

#251

Post by tathougies »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #194
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 think your point mirrors Scott Galloway's and Warren Buffet's philosophies. Why is sweat, regular labor, taxed much more than capital gains? Why do CEOs who are fantastically rich need lower taxation rates than the 100s of laborers their lifestyle relies upon? We tax sweat, we let riches run free.

Capital gains -- gains from dividends or retained earnings -- are taxed at the corporate tax level before being distributed. I don't think we should retax them at all. I think dividends should be untaxed, and so should the retained earnings portion when selling a stock, but all capital gains attributed purely to increase in speculative valuation can be taxed more, sure. Just a small nitpick.

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

#252

Post by mtberatwork »

wpietri wrote: post #211
alexose wrote: post #142

I find it very disappointing that the most reliably lucrative career arc for a programmer nowadays is to get hired by a tech giant and stay there as long as possible. And the second most is probably to go to work for a company that could get gobbled up by a tech giant. I've made a career out of small startups, and I wouldn't trade it for a thing. On the other hand, if I'd gone to work for Amazon straight out of colle…

And what kills me about this is it almost seems like the big tech companies are just grabbing up engineers to no purpose. When I hear stories about what people are actually doing at larger companies, it often seems somewhere between miniscule and just plain empty. And it's not like a lot of the people telling these stories don't understand that. But they're happy enough wasting a third of their day at that salary.

> But they're happy enough wasting a third of their day at that salary.

Who wouldn't be with those salary levels? You basically have the golden ticket in your hand.

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

#253

Post by imtringued »

cvlasdkv wrote: post #188
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah usually the more fun job pays less. That’s just basic economics. Life is all about trade offs.

There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. I also find the idea of "basic economics" laughable given how impossible economics is in the first place. I mean, yes, if you assume spherical cows...

>There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less.

Basic supply and demand. Fun jobs mean more people apply to the job. The employer can pick the cheapest employees. Employees can get an edge over their peers by lowering their salary expectations because they value the job more than the money.

I honestly don't even think that this is a bad trade off. There are lots of jobs where you get access to equipment that you could never afford even if you had a higher salary. Think of working at a company like SpaceX or doing research at a university.

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

#254

Post by _fq4v »

jtolmar wrote: post #165
kebman wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you cannot offer anything of value, someone else will offer that value on your behalf, making you an extraneous cost which anyone in their right mind would want to remove. And then you are but a slave to whomever you are useful to, meaning whoever controls you, and whoever has the power, and who grants you the means to get those basic needs. If someone is giving you bread for free, you can be sure it's bec…

> making you an extraneous cost which anyone in their right mind would want to remove Wanting to remove people for being "extraneous costs" is not right-minded. It is extreme sociopathy.

Unless you consider the majority of human societies to have every existed extreme sociopathy. While I don't particularly support it, many societies throughout history exposed children with disabilities and many many more would execute or exile elements they deemed 'criminal'. Today, we still remove people for potentially being extraneous costs in abortion. It's legal, but it is the same motivation.

I mean, I personally think it's all sociopathic, but it's the normal state of 'the state'.

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

#255

Post by thanatropism »

leetcrew wrote: post #246
cvlasdkv wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. I also find the idea of "basic economics" laughable given how impossible economics is in the first place. I mean, yes, if you assume spherical cows...

this seems like basic common sense. if you have two job offers for the same salary, but one sounds really fun and the other sounds really boring, wouldn't you pick the fun one? but at the same time unless you're already pretty wealthy, there's probably a dollar amount that would make you pick the boring one instead. iterate this choice over enough people, and the "fun factor" depresses wages.

Good economics is basically common sense on manifolds.

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

#256

Post by seph-reed »

Frost1x wrote: post #173
aj7 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate governance is authoritarian. Period.

And its growing ever more unavoidable in daily life for anyone trying to live. Pretty much everyone is becoming subject to these authoritarian regimes (corporate structures) as they invade and carve away at our democracy through financial influence, regulatory capture, etc.

I've been playing with the idea of equity cash lately.

Something where the more money you've spent at a place, the more say you have in how it is run.

Not really sure of what way that could be done, but the premise feels right so far.

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

#257

Post by tathougies »

bedhead wrote: post #160
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've long argued for massive estate taxes on the very rich that forces a partial reset on wealth and avoid medieval times when land ownership was just passed down generation to generation. It's the only fair and practical wealth tax I can think of. I have no problem at all with Bezos being filthy rich, however, I have a giant problem with his kids and all descendants being billionaires. A huge estate tax would also m…

Frankly, this wouldn't do much. Most familial wealth in america ends up getting lost. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-90-of-rich-peopl....

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

#258

Post by dragonwriter »

cvlasdkv wrote: post #188
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah usually the more fun job pays less. That’s just basic economics. Life is all about trade offs.

There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. I also find the idea of "basic economics" laughable given how impossible economics is in the first place. I mean, yes, if you assume spherical cows...

Cet. par., if doing a job involves less disutility for the worker, people will demand less pay to compensate, since pay demands will be at the breakeven net utility point. Basic economics.

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

#259

Post by megaman821 »

zorked wrote: post #243
megaman821 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that all the forms of collective control you listed are perfectly legal. If the majority of workers prefer workplaces like that then those places will thrive. What you are implying though, is that the government forces all workplaces to conform to your desired control scheme. So fuller democracy equals government limiting choice, as long as it is your desired choice.

That's a bit like saying "Here we are in 1650 under an absolute monarchy. The people are the majority, they could topple our illegitimate hereditary government and make it a democracy, but they haven't done it yet because they certainly prefer things this way".

Not at all. If the people tried to topple the monarchy, they would be actively in conflict with the military. I am pretty sure you can start a co-op without risking conflict with the military.

Can you tell me the exact things the government is preventing people from doing in this case?

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

#260

Post by [deleted] »

zorked wrote: post #243
megaman821 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that all the forms of collective control you listed are perfectly legal. If the majority of workers prefer workplaces like that then those places will thrive. What you are implying though, is that the government forces all workplaces to conform to your desired control scheme. So fuller democracy equals government limiting choice, as long as it is your desired choice.

That's a bit like saying "Here we are in 1650 under an absolute monarchy. The people are the majority, they could topple our illegitimate hereditary government and make it a democracy, but they haven't done it yet because they certainly prefer things this way".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN