Live data from Hacker News

Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

nytimes.com

51–60 of 302 posts

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#51
The first graph is the most interesting. Productivity has increased substantially while wages have remained relatively stagnant. More of the surplus value of labor has been accumulating to capital.

This means that people who get their income primarily from labor have lost a great deal of power vis a vis those whose income comes disproportionately from ownership of capital.

Questions and some guesses: 1) Why is this? If labor can extract less value, that would suggest that it has less bargaining power. That is, labor is more fungible. This fits in with what we experience as developers: one of the great emphases that (successful) companies place is on making developers replaceable and their labor roughly equivalent, through an increased emphasis on frameworks and general languages. It also makes sense for less professionalized labor. Heavy industry requires skills to operate effectively and runs the risk of shutdowns at centralized production facilities, while services and light industry are much easier workplaces to dominate workers.

2)How do the unemployed and underemployed fit in? This is complicated, as women have entered to workforce to make two-income households, while zero-marginal product men have left it as they cannot be employed profitably.

3) Was the threat of communism an enabling force for the middle and working classes in the "good times" leading up to the 80s when it finally started to crack and fall? Before the ruling class in the United States had to optimize the economy to be as effective as possible against the threat of Communism. This meant sacrificing some of its own well-being to buy off the rest of our consent for the ability to play a major role in geopolitics ( this buy off taking the form of concessions to unions, more forceful labor market interventions, healthcare, investments in public education).

4) Could the increasing inequality somehow be a statistical artifact? Smaller countries tend to be more egalitarian than richer ones. Most individual countries in the EU and states in the USA have a lower Gini coefficient than the EU or USA as a whole. Could a similar mechanism cause a larger and more sophisticated economy to feel pressures to become more unequal?

Its tricky to simply blame it on USA policies, as most Western countries have also become significantly less egalitarian than they were in 1970. Which isn't to say that US policies didn't cause it in the USA; it's just that those policies didn't appear in a vacuum, and you've got to identify the forces that caused it around the world.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#52

So the working class has been taken to the slaughterhouse? My billion dollar question: What happened at the end of the 70's / beginning of the 80's?

in short ronald reagan tax breaks and labor market deregulation: paul krugman has essentially a whole book on why this occurred ( http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/039... ) It is an amazing book that really changed my view of labor unions. i would recommend it to anyone. heres an example from his blog: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/more-about-the-r... he has a lot of stuff on his…

[deleted]

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#53
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think that the top tax bracket being slashed from over 70% to well below 50% had something to do with it as well?

Less than people think. Back when taxes were so high, the rich were really good at tax avoidance. So the rate doesn't tell you the whole story. As one of the people whose opinion about working for a large company changed during the 1970s, I know I didn't consciously think about tax rates. (It's possible they affected me unconsciously though, via the examples of people who'd cleared more after tax due to lower rates.)

"Back when taxes were so high, the rich were really good at tax avoidance." first, [citation needed]. Second, compared to now? Third, is it relevant? how? I see you glossed over that. It's like hacking..and painting..isn't it.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#54

This analysis also ignores actual purchasing power (non-core inflation). Wages may have stagnated, but purchasing power for non-core goods has soared. Free trade is a powerful cause of both wage stagnation and purchasing power. Sure, eliminate free trade and the working class will see wages go up; but they'll spend those wages on $4000 plasma TVs and $50,000 economy cars.

People making your argument always mention TVs, they never mention rent, land, food, education, childcare, or healthcare. 1. Rent 2. Land 3. Food 4. Education 5. Childcare 6. Healthcare You know, the stuff that actually matters. I'll give up my $400 LCD TV to be able to afford having my spouse stay home. No problem. I'll give up my Hyundai to be able to get a degree on the cheap like they did back in the 60s. I'll gi…

Repost of something I wrote the other day that I think is relevant:

My very average house today is a huge luxury compared to the very average house my grandparents bought in the 60s. I have a cable bill, an iPhone bill, an internet bill, a netflix bill, and too many various SaaS subscriptions. My grandparents had none of those.

I also have a much higher power bill to pay for all my consumer electronics and air conditioning, a higher health insurance bill to pay for drastically better health care, an extra car insurance policy.

That's in addition to all the extra stuff I have lying around. 2 cars, not one, both of which are vastly superior and more expensive than what my grandparents had. Superior home appliances. And 1 metric tonne of electronics. I have so much more material wealth than all but the very richest did just 50 years ago. How could I complain that I'm not better off?

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#55
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People making your argument always mention TVs, they never mention rent, land, food, education, childcare, or healthcare. 1. Rent 2. Land 3. Food 4. Education 5. Childcare 6. Healthcare You know, the stuff that actually matters. I'll give up my $400 LCD TV to be able to afford having my spouse stay home. No problem. I'll give up my Hyundai to be able to get a degree on the cheap like they did back in the 60s. I'll gi…

[deleted]

The word "land" is a colloquialism for "owning your own residence"

Leave it to Hacker News to be overly literal.

Most people know what I mean. This isn't a legal document. The price of land drives the cost of housing.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#56
post #36

Technological progress should cause increasing economic inequality, because the bottom end of the scale is firmly anchored at zero (someone taking a vacation), while technology gives the top end ever more powerful levers. So the interesting question is not why economic inequality is increasing, but why for a few decades in the mid twentieth century the trend was reversed. There are probably several factors at work he…

I think this comment only acknowledges the existence of white collar jobs. You used to be able to pay for a house, a car, and the kids' college education with a factory job. While the wife stayed at home. Now, that scenario is eye-popping unbelievable. You're probably at wal-mart or starbucks if you don't have some sort of specialist skill or a connection into the white collar world.

I'm not endorsing a particular solution here, and specifically not endorsing forcing factories to employ expensive people instead of cheap robots to 'create jobs'. But it's important to see the situation clearly.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#57
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

The word "land" is a colloquialism for "owning your own residence" Leave it to Hacker News to be overly literal. Most people know what I mean. This isn't a legal document. The price of land drives the cost of housing.

[deleted]

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#58
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think that the top tax bracket being slashed from over 70% to well below 50% had something to do with it as well?

Less than people think. Back when taxes were so high, the rich were really good at tax avoidance. So the rate doesn't tell you the whole story. As one of the people whose opinion about working for a large company changed during the 1970s, I know I didn't consciously think about tax rates. (It's possible they affected me unconsciously though, via the examples of people who'd cleared more after tax due to lower rates.)

Back in the 1950s, the rich were really good at tax avoidance. All they had to do was to donate more than their total income to charity. (The so-called flying nun tax exemption.) This was doable because when you donated items that appreciated in value, you didn't get taxed on the increase in value, but got to claim the whole value.

So if your parents had bought a lot of art, you could donate the art. Better yet you could donate a million dollars to a charitable foundation you had, have them use it to buy a piece of art from you, and then donate 4 other pieces of art which are now valued at $1 million each.

The result was a huge run-up in the value of things like art, and a simultaneous increase in public art for display. When you visit the Metropolitan Museum, you're basically seeing the benefits of a tax dodge.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#59
post #25
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes -- many families have shifted from single to dual-earner in order to maintain the same standard of living, so the household income charts really understate the decline in individual wages over this period.

That is not true. They vastly overstate the decline in wages, due to the rise of more single person households. See: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=a7jenngfc4um7_&#... Individual wages have risen steadily since 1910, with no gaps. The household income chart is a misleading chart.

Does this take into account inflation? It could be that they are actually decreasing with inflation. I don't think it's like that but I'm just curious.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#60
post #37
post #33

Every time I see this kind of chart, I always wonder why the aggregate income distribution of a population is a metric that anyone ought to be concerned about. What does one person's income have to do with anyone else's - why would you aggregate everyone's separate incomes into a single figure in the first place? And if someone's particular income is insufficient to meet their needs, how do the aggregate population d…

It's a pretty good indicator about the real impact of poverty in that society. If a lot of the wealth is concentrated, the people in the middle and bottom are very squeezed in terms of what society actually offers them (generally), whereas if the wealth is more evenly distributed, society tends to make sure everybody's getting along well, with health care and schools and what-not. Of course, you can definitely throw…

> If a lot of the wealth is concentrated, the people in the middle and bottom are very squeezed in terms of what society actually offers them (generally)

I'm not sure I understand the connection though. I don't see how one party having a large amount of wealth, however defined, necessarily precludes any other party from having any amount of wealth.

> whereas if the wealth is more evenly distributed, society tends to make sure everybody's getting along well, with health care and schools and what-not.

But the underlying underlying in statements like this is that wealth originates in the aggregation, and individuals subsequently claim a portion of it, which seems counter-intuitive and false.

Particular people build things like schools and hospitals in particular places, generating wealth for the specific people involved. 'Society' doesn't ensure that people have these goods; people create these goods for themselves, and generate society in the process.

Post reply on HN