Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 520 posts

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#331

Post by orthecreedence »

kansface wrote: post #63
steelstraw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's up with all the language games lately? "Defund the police". No no, we don't actually mean defund the police... "Anti work". No no, we don't actually mean we're anti work...

The sub was originally anarchists who literally believe in not working - read the linked posts in the sidebar. It was taken over by socialists but the name stuck.

Anarchists are, in general, a subset of socialists. You have wacky things like anarcho-capitalists, but it's difficult to take them seriously. There are some rigorous ancaps who truly believe that somehow the state is not needed to protect absentee ownership of property and that this arrangement will be a net benefit to humanity, but many of them simply think the government is the only thing stopping them from owning a zeppelin and wearing a top hat.

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#332

Post by btown »

fragmede wrote: post #290
scatters wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If inflation is 5% and you get a 5% raise, you're level in real terms, right? No, because that 5% is taxed at your higher tax rate, which is (usually) higher than your average tax rate. This is called bracket creep.

Only if 5% causes you to change tax brackets. 5% of $300k is a lot more than 5% of $100k or $50k/yr, but only if you were already at the very edge of a tax bracket will 5% cause you to change bracket. Eg the 22% bracket is from $40-$86k for single filers in 2021. Only if you were making $81k or more will 5% tip you over. For everyone else earning 40-81k, that 5% doesn't cause a bracket change.

To add to this, especially for non-Americans or Americans unfamiliar with the tax system, the very notion of "change tax brackets" is a misnomer.

If you make $41k, you still pay 10% on your first ~$10k, 12% on the next ~$30k, and 22% only on that last $1k.

So yes, you could be in a situation where you had been at the top of a bracket, and your incremental wages from the raise are taxed at the next bracket's rate. But it doesn't trigger any kind of situation where your entire salary is now charged at the higher rate.

Yes, of course, a 5% raise does not compensate for 5% inflation. But that's just because taxes exist, not because you are entering a higher bracket per se.

IMO, the whole pervasive narrative around tax brackets being something to fear is a fear-uncertainty-and-doubt move by those seeking to vilify the tax system. It's worked surprisingly well to those ends.

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#333

Post by beeboop »

giantg2 wrote: post #252
wonderwonder wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a ~50% raise last year by changing jobs and switching to 1099. This year I did not get a raise, contract just renewed as is. So I got a 50% raise to start the year and after inflation took a 10% cut at the end of the year. I like the job but I think I have maxed the salary there so going to have to find a new one at the end of this year. Pretty unfortunate but I can't eat a pay cut every year. I have a feeling…

10% cut? Wasn't inflation about 6.2%?

Official inflation numbers are super dishonest in my opinion.

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#335

Post by MilnerRoute »

bhouser wrote: post #311
MilnerRoute wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing I never hear discussed is that this round of inflation isn't expected to be permanent, or even particularly long-lasting. So a wage increase in January which is (temporarily) eaten up by January's inflation means....an actual wage increase in May which then goes on for years and years.

I think you're making a mathematical error here. If inflation goes to zero, that does not mean prices have fallen to where they were before. It merely means prices stop increasing further. So a temporary bout of inflation equal in magnitude to a one-time but persistent wage increase, _do_ cancel out.

Maybe I should swap in the word "price increases" for inflation.

Gas prices are high now, but nobody expects them to stay at this level indefinitely. (And nobody expects the price of gas to stop increasing without then also dropping back down.) Supply-chain related price increases aren't permanent, and go in the other direction when the supply chain improves.

And the larger point is it's a positive development if workers really are able to renegotiate their compensation -- and that isn't entirely negated by slightly higher prices in January.

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#336

Post by Stupulous »

jtbayly wrote: post #257
lotsofpulp wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the relevance of tax brackets? Earning more nominally while standard of living going down is the same as earning less in real terms. “Moving up” in a tax bracket never means earning less in nominal or in real terms. It just means you get less in your pocket of the extra you earned, not of the total you earned.

Because they haven’t adjusted the amounts for the tax brackets with inflation. So it’s a double whammy. Your money is worth less, even though you got more of it. And now Uncle Sam is taking more of it.

I cannot figure out why the US writes laws in terms of nominal value while maintaining an inflationary currency. The majority of lawmakers agree that a law should be x with respect to the current value of USD, why don't they also agree it should be x+inflation for a future value of USD? Maybe with a circuit breaker for hyperinflation. They don't have to rely on third party inflation numbers, because the Fed is a government agency.

Do some lawmakers only support a law because it will have a lower (min. wage) or higher (tax) real monetary significance in the future?

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#337

Post by mullingitover »

cwkoss wrote: post #247
georgyo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your touching on a much more complicated subject about reporting. If someone one owns a billion dollars of stock foobar, and foobar grows 10x, then that person is now worth 10B and "made" 9B. However they have not sold anything so while they can be reported as making 9B, they are none of it was directly cash and not taxed; at least not yet. However, while Bezos "only" has a salary/bonus of 1.5 million a year, it is v…

The billionaire stock owner in your example's economic power has increased by 10x regardless though. They can borrow against that money and those funds aren't taxed - so they can effectively spend it without taxation. They can cycle debt to avoid ever having to sell a single share for their entire life, at rates more favorable than any middle class person has access to. We can fix our tax code with legislation to add…

I think there's kind of a tacit understanding with business owners and legislators that if you collect taxes, you're good. Bezos and Musk might not pay taxes personally, but they oversee operations that result in payments of sales taxes, payroll taxes, employee income taxes, property taxes, etc, in vast amounts.

The historical critiques of class warfare have some good points, because there's obviously a privileged class here that's doing really well on the backs of labor, and this privileged class can afford to buy (and let's face it, it's really bribe) itself ever more privileges for a very tiny share of their wealth.

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#338

Post by sseagull »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #244
altcognito wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wage gains are not being treated the same as investment gains. It's not like Bezos is taking home an hourly rate. Everybody at the real top is doing quite, quite well. That's why the concentration of wealth into a very few hands at the top marches on, not because of "wages".

There are the rich and then there are the really rich, and then there are the unbelievably rich. I'll happily call a family earning 500k/y on two salaries in a small town where a million dollar home is literally a mansion on a hill "rich". Because they are. They just aren't as rich as the Trumps or Bezoss of the world.

One of my favorite quotes on the topic:

"Shaq is rich. The white man that signs his check, is wealthy." [Chris Rock]

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#339

Post by [deleted] »

scatters wrote: post #243
lotsofpulp wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the relevance of tax brackets? Earning more nominally while standard of living going down is the same as earning less in real terms. “Moving up” in a tax bracket never means earning less in nominal or in real terms. It just means you get less in your pocket of the extra you earned, not of the total you earned.

If inflation is 5% and you get a 5% raise, you're level in real terms, right? No, because that 5% is taxed at your higher tax rate, which is (usually) higher than your average tax rate. This is called bracket creep.

[deleted]

Re: The Great Resignation? More Like the Great Renegotiation

#340

Post by jonnycomputer »

KerrAvon wrote: post #298
jonnycomputer wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are the rich and then there are the really rich, and then there are the unbelievably rich. I'll happily call a family earning 500k/y on two salaries in a small town where a million dollar home is literally a mansion on a hill "rich". Because they are. They just aren't as rich as the Trumps or Bezoss of the world.

What do you intend to connote by saying someone is "rich," though? What does it signify? If the definition of "rich" is "independently wealthy," that family certainly doesn't meet it. They still have to work for a living. If it means you never have to worry about where the next meal is coming from or losing the roof over your head, sure, a lot of people are "rich." And maybe this is better than 90% of humanity does,…

What does not calling them rich signify?
Post reply on HN