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

261–270 of 476 posts

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

#261

Post by scottlocklin »

nickff wrote: post #185
scottlocklin wrote: post #108

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.

I'm not sure that Larry Summers would call the people at Harvard his 'pals'; my understanding is that Summers was forced out of his position there.

Andrei Shleifer was definitely his pal, definitely helped loot Russia, is STILL at Harvard, despite their settling a lawsuit over insider trading related to his activities, and Summers was not forced out from his position there for any malfeasance. He was forced out for saying things. Which shows you where Harvard is at; commit crimes, loot multiple countries? No problemo; just don't say things which trigger people.

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

#262

Post by Apocryphon »

megaman821 wrote: post #259
zorked wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Another metaphor: "Linux is open and free, it can be a major desktop OS if everyone just switched to it, but because they haven't they obviously don't care for it."

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

#263

Post by imtringued »

milesvp wrote: post #241
bedhead wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The bigger problem with estate taxes (and btw estate taxes often imply death taxes in US law) that you may not see is how they effect smaller players. One of the things fueling corporate consolidation is asset liquidation upon death. If I start and own a small company that’s worth $10million, when I die, there is likely a strong desire to liquidate that company in order to allow for some inheritance to multiple peopl…

Why not just split the estate? A single person should not inherit more than 50% of the value of the estate.

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

#264

Post by dlp211 »

milesvp wrote: post #241
bedhead wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The bigger problem with estate taxes (and btw estate taxes often imply death taxes in US law) that you may not see is how they effect smaller players. One of the things fueling corporate consolidation is asset liquidation upon death. If I start and own a small company that’s worth $10million, when I die, there is likely a strong desire to liquidate that company in order to allow for some inheritance to multiple peopl…

> My understanding is this has been a very real problem for farmers for many generations, and they have been the largest opponents for estate taxes.

Your understanding is a talking point created by the Republican party and has no real basis in reality.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/death-tax-talking-point-wo... https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-myth-that-the-estate-tax-threa... https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/10/news/economy/farmers-estate... https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec... https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2001/04/09/debunking-the-my...

I will also point out that estates benefit from step-up basis which avoids Capital Gains taxes on unrealized gains, which is hugely beneficial to most estates. This way of taxing is meant as a compromise to allow fairly large estates to pass tax exempt --currently up to $11MM if held by a single person, $22MM for a married couple-- while applying taxes to estates that all but guarantee that you could retire instantly collecting an income that puts you in the top 1% of household earnings in the US with highly favorable capital gains tax treatment. Also, the IRS will work with anyone that has a large illiquid estate and allow taxes to be paid over a decade after an initial grace period, with an appropriate interest rate.

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

#265

Post by afterburner »

viburnum wrote: post #222

It’s sad to see elite American economists fumbling around with productivity and employment issues that Swedish economists like Wigforss, Karleby, Sandler, and the Myrdahls had worked out in the 1930s and 1940s.

It's a feature not a bug. Things that were figured out in the 30's (such as Keynes) were actively fought against by people who didn't like the policy those economic conclusions led to. Mainly because those policies interfered with their plans to gobble everything up.

Entire erroneous economic theories were concocted to wage their war.

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

#266

Post by burrows »

Super_Jambo wrote: post #226
burrows wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's way to easy to "create jobs" which are essentially busy-work with 0 to negative productivity. If firms have workers with negative productivity, aren't executives incentivized to fire them? And if so, why are there negative-productivity workers?

Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to. There are also plenty of examples of work that is profitable to a company but that doesn't create value to consumers: * Campaign Donations / Lobbying for favourable regulations. * Softbank style monopoly creation (it's just moving investor money to consumers). * Pate…

> Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to.

Who is incentivized to hold executives responsible for the bottom line, board members and shareholders?

> If you're hell bent on thinking markets are inherently fair you can contort yourself to show these things _can_ be productive but to think they're always productive?

I agree, insomuch that many 'profitable ventures' don't increase the aggregate material wealth of the country.

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

#267

Post by ls612 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #155
ls612 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero unemployment would be bad because it would imply there’s no churn of people leaving one job for another. Back last year when unemployment was 3.5% most of that is people choosing to leave a job to find a new one.

It is not necessary to be unemployed for an extended amount of time in order to change jobs.

But on average a few percent of people will be unemployed at the moment the survey week is conducted. And that is what the unemployment rate is measuring.

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

#268

Post by scollet »

swiley wrote: post #121
babycake wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are loaded terms. When you conspire to conflate protesters and looters as the latter, then it doesn't make a difference.

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

#269

Post by ivalm »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #240
burrows wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's way to easy to "create jobs" which are essentially busy-work with 0 to negative productivity. If firms have workers with negative productivity, aren't executives incentivized to fire them? And if so, why are there negative-productivity workers?

Another word for negative productivity is overhead. Many administrative, HR and IT workers are overhead, but still needed.

They are not negative productivity. Internally consumed product is still product.

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

#270

Post by dwiel »

seph-reed wrote: post #256
Frost1x wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there a way a startup could set up this business model, or would it necessarily require all the tax and legal implications of a publicly traded company?
Post reply on HN