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

America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 238 posts

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#201

Post by stasomatic »

pydry wrote: post #6
sokoloff wrote: post #3

> We measure resources by using per capita gross domestic product – the amount of money in a country evenly divided among its entire population. GDP is not "the amount of money in a country". GDP is the monetary value of goods and services produced within a country during a given period (a flow, measured in dollars-per-year). The amount of money in a country is a measure at a point in a time (a stock, measured in dol…

it's not that either. it's the total value of all transactions. if you paint a masterpiece worth millions and keep it in your closet it has negligible impact on GDP. only once it is sold does it have an effect.

Can you explain more? Isn't it just money changing hands? The millions sat in the buyer's safe, now it's in the artist's safe. Same total, no? Or is it doubled? The artist has millions, and the buyer has millions worth of art. I am dense, if you can't tell.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#202

Post by lostlogin »

oblio wrote: post #193
lostlogin wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m on a Cervélo Soloist. I’ve just looked more carefully - the warnings is on the S5 (under the frame set sale option, specifically naming lead), so I’m safe! https://www.cervelo.com/en-GB/bikes/s5 So I’m in the clear. I’m pro good regulation. This warning is ridiculous and it’s plastered all over things in California such that it’s useless. Yes, there are toxic things on a bike. How many riders or their offspring w…

Does the warning harm you? That's the ultimate benchmark of bad legislation? Annoying legislation is just... meh. Now, what would be ideal if they would actually list the harmful chemicals and where exactly they are used. There are certifications that require that kind of disclosure and for people that do care, they're gold.

> Does the warning harm you?

It’s a waste of time and money, so yes.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#203

Post by rjrjrjrj »

anonym29 wrote: post #196
rjrjrjrj wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child in America is more likely to die than a child in Europe, Canada, Aus, NZ, ...

Sure, but almost never from a school shooting - usually from a car accident. That is one place where I'll be the first to acknowledge America isn't doing great on with regards to child safety.

Often from a gun

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#204

Post by lostlogin »

oblio wrote: post #192
TomK32 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sorry, I missed that CA over-cautious warning label nonsense.

> Oh sorry, I missed that CA over-cautious warning label nonsense. See, that's the thing... what "over-cautious warning label nonsense"? What are they actually warning about? Which chemicals/products?

Who’d know. It gets slapped on all sorts of things and you can’t tell which matter.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#205

Post by tstrimple »

freedomben wrote: post #146
tstrimple wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Oh water is healthy for you? Why don’t you drink a hundred gallons a day? Checkmate atheists!” Brilliant argument you have there.

You didn't answer the question. I suspect that is because basic economics kicks in and you quickly realize that you can't just raise the minimum wage as high as you want and expect it to work. It is a complicated and complex and highly nuanced thing. Your water example actually reinforces my point. If GP ignores the reality around drinking too much water, they will poison themselves, just like ignoring the reality ar…

Because the question is stupid on its face. If thing X is good, 1000x X must be good too is such a stupid fucking mentality. It doesn't apply to literally anything. Vitamin C is good. Too much is toxic. Sun exposure is good. Too much is toxic. Drinking water is good. Too much is toxic. Such a basic fucking concept that exists across basically everything in our society.

Yet here you are stating that because a higher minimum wage is good, it must be more good to make the minimum wage "a million an hour" too right? Which doesn't follow at all based on literally any other example of things that are "good". It's mind-numbingly stupid. It's a ridiculous straw-man made by someone either disingenuous or ignorant.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#206

Post by joegibbs »

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #97

I believe Americans are naive to the bad deal they're currently sitting with. It is the most materially wealthy place on earth, yet with terrible distribution – this is not a technical problem, it is a cultural problem. My favorite example is to describe a suburb. A lot of people in the world do not know how dystopian an American suburb is: many residents do not know their neighbors, acquiring food requires driving a…

But who are you to decide whether suburban Americans are living the right kind of life? Surely if they wanted to they could move to an apartment in a dense inner-city area. It would be cheaper than living in a large house in the suburbs and save them from spending more on heating, maintenance and cars. It would save them time as well, because they could be located close to their office. Despite all these downsides they still prefer to buy large suburban houses, drive everywhere, not know their neighbours and so on. Perhaps they just like it that way.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#207

Post by gadders »

danbruc wrote: post #161
gadders wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like an amazing way to stop people taking risks to start companies.

Only people that see businesses primarily as a way to get rich and not as a way to satisfy consumer demand while doing something you like.

Well it should be both, no?

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#208

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

simianwords wrote: post #46
logicchains wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. Envy should be regarded as a character defect, a sin, not something to be elevated to policy. You're not poorer because someone's richer than you, and indeed policies aimed to reduce wealth inequality will actually make you poorer, that's why average European salaries are much lower than US ones.

The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency and not just for the virtue of doing so.

> The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality.

Yes!

> But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion.

Bafflegab.

> Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency

Sophistry. Why is "efficiency" a goal and how would you even define it?

Look at the current pollical great power of Oligarchs. Does this strike you as "efficient"? I see it as producing poor outcomes, and that's all.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#209

Post by jjav »

roenxi wrote: post #12

> America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD The US consistently scores among the best countries in the world for paying people [0]. Is there some way I can lodge an application to be exploited in a similar manner, without having to move there? Being wealthy and having to live among really wealthy people sounds better than being poor and living among equals. They're inventing a me…

> paying people

If you are not in the US, there can be a lot of surprises in these comparisons.

You might see that you make $X in tech and in Silicon Valley someone makes $3X for same job and that sounds awesome on paper.

But how much is health care coverage, both insurance and out of pocket after insurance? In SV I pay over $20K in insurance and the additional out of pocket depends on what happens but can be $10K-$20K. But if you have some catastrophic health problem, can be in the millions of dollars. Compare this with health expenses outside of the US.

How much is daycare, school and university for the kids? The costs in the US are mind-blowing, vs. either free or cheap in other countries. Here in SV I pay ~$45K/year just for high school, university will probably be a lot more.

Home insurance? If you can even get it, will be outrageous. Car insurance, think 4K-10K year depending on details.

And so on.

Don't compare gross salary, compare net leftover salary after ALL required expenses.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#210

Post by gadders »

inigyou wrote: post #157
gadders wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't go on Reddit, but you seem to still have people on here who are hard of thinking and believe that increasing the minimum wage has no second or third order effects.

"oh you think drinking water is good? why don't you just drown at the bottom of the ocean?" is a 100% reddit-tier comment.

"Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity") is a valid argumentative technique that disproves a statement by demonstrating that its logical conclusion leads to an absurd, impossible, or contradictory result."
Post reply on HN