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

301–310 of 476 posts

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

#301

Post by olivermarks »

rmrfstar wrote: post #63
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #27

The big issue is supply and demand. With increasing automation and global supply chains, there is a huge amount of labor available relative to the need. In the past, a union strike at a plant would see a generous long-term contract and benefits for the workers. Now, it is likely for the plant to be moved or workers replaced with automation.

Larry Summers is simply not credible. This is an "oh fuck things are about to get out of hand, let's try to insert ourselves into the debate so we don't get locked out" paper. Here is Larry Summers from his 1998 speech "The Challenges of Success". " The world looks very different than it did at the beginning of this decade, a time when America was said to be in decline. It is now clear that America will grow faster i…

Adding Stoller's 'Goliath" 100 years of monopoly vs democracy book. Highly recommend along with his substack and strongly agree with @rmrfstar

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Goliath/Matt-Stoller/...

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

#302

Post by the_cat_kittles »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #143
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…

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

wow, check out this guy who figured it out. damn, never thought about that. i guess all the people who get paid alot to do fun things, and all the people who get paid shit to do horrible stuff were in my imaginiation.

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

#303

Post by [deleted] »

Apocryphon wrote: post #285
Aunche wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is not an efficient way of running a business. Look at the multi-trillion dollar deficit as an example. Workers are incentivized to choose themselves over the health of the company or the customer. Also, people overwhelmingly would rather exchange their stake in the company for the equivalent value in cash. It's only when the company's valuation skyrockets when they retroactively declare this to be unfair.

As we've seen in recent cases, corporate management has become incentivized to choose the interests of the investors over the health of the company or the customer or their workers, making short-term decisions that look good in quarterly reports.

[deleted]

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

#304

Post by Apocryphon »

zby wrote: post #271
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".

I don't know - there are cooperatives - it is not like you need to risk your life to work at one. Somehow they are not that popular. There are also partnerships - which are kind of close to cooperatives, when they employ only the partners and for example outsource office cleaning and stuff. In some industries they do pretty well - for example in law. Why cooperatives do poorly? Maybe people usually are not very good…

Maybe they're less popular because they're less well-known, their benefits and downsides are as well, and so they're less likely to be considered by people incorporating a new business? Or maybe they're less advantageous to the founders so that's why they're simply not pursued?

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

#305

Post by s1artibartfast »

tathougies wrote: post #251
Dumblydorr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the exact opposite. Taxing capital gains and eliminating corporate taxes would incentivise value creation. Low tax dividends and capital gains benifit individuals without active participation in the value creation.

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

#306

Post by willcipriano »

gnicholas wrote: post #232
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...

> There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less It's called 'psychic income', and it is something that people will accept, to some extent, as a substitute for cash comp. This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more. There are a lot of people who enjoy teaching, and not a lot who enjoy garba…

>This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more.

Looks like the median pay for garbage collectors is $37,840[0] and for teachers it is $59,420[1]

[0]https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537081.htm

[1]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/mobil...

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

#307

Post by tathougies »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #305
tathougies wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the exact opposite. Taxing capital gains and eliminating corporate taxes would incentivise value creation. Low tax dividends and capital gains benifit individuals without active participation in the value creation.

> Low tax dividends and capital gains benifit individuals without active participation in the value creation.

Presumably, actively working (like with a job) to generate wealth to invest in other enterprises is 'active participation in the value creation'. I mean, sure, if you want to introduce steep capital gains on invested capital that was inherited, or won, or whatever, that's fine.

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

#308

Post by Avicebron »

clarry wrote: post #298
Aunche wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is not an efficient way of running a business. Look at the multi-trillion dollar deficit as an example. Workers are incentivized to choose themselves over the health of the company or the customer. Also, people overwhelmingly would rather exchange their stake in the company for the equivalent value in cash. It's only when the company's valuation skyrockets when they retroactively declare this to be unfair.

> Workers are incentivized to choose themselves over the health of the company or the customer. And maybe that is how it should be? Maybe life shouldn't be about the most efficient way to run a business.

This. Why should life be run the way business's are run, we have been co-opted by the business model and all it's sociopathic tendencies.

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

#309

Post by visarga »

someguyorother wrote: post #249
kebman wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a concept, but an observation. What you're talking about already exists. It's the capitalist cooperative, where people voluntarily come together to pool capital in order to build some company that produces things or services that are of benefit to the collective owners and/or their customers. However, while the price of membership in such a unit decreases with every new participant, the ownership is also…

Right, so the point that it is a matter of degree stands, and the point that you are not powerless in a state where you are part of the government also stands. Given those points, it is not impossible to imagine a future state deciding to use some of its resources to constructing an automated production system. Its legitimacy is backed up in two ways: once, by the consent of the governed through the democratic proces…

As automation advances it will be much more self reliant in terms of supply chains and production. It could be conceivable that a small town is completely self reliant, not needing to be an entity the size of a state to achieve it.

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

#310

Post by tathougies »

dlp211 wrote: post #283
tathougies wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... .

Three things. First, this is only true of the past and doesn't saying anything about the future. Second, this "study" isn't weighted based on the size of the estate. Third, that 10% matters far more than you could imagine.

> First, this is only true of the past and doesn't saying anything about the future.

Well, I can say that about anything. Oh... the rate of return on capital is higher than the rate of return on labor? Well that's only true of the past, no study has studied the concrete data of what is going to happen in the future (Hint: it's because there is none).

Post reply on HN