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

The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#41

Post by civilian »

sageikosa wrote: post #28
sergiosgc wrote: post #20

Don't look at inequality from a justice perspective. Justice is a moral definition, and highly volatile, so the discussion would be endless. Look at it from a society efficiency point of view. From an efficiency point of view, some inequality is interesting. You need to aggregate some capital for investments to occur, you need rich people for high risk investments to be possible. However, as in most systems, there is…

> Herein lies the problem with the job creators argument. It is not fundamentally wrong, but it is wrong for the current level of inequality. We are past the optimum and, for society and the economy to gain efficiency, inequality must be reduced. Are you suggesting we get rid of the unemployed? That would certainly increase "society efficiency", I think (not sure how we measure that again). But if we want to reduce s…

Yeahhh, I don't think that's what he was suggesting. You were proving Godwin's Law, right?

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#42

Post by boomlinde »

ctdonath wrote: post #15

Supply and demand. More people are increasingly willing to give more money to fewer people. The key is WILLING. People CHOOSE to hand over their money. For all the complaints/accusations about unfair business practices etc., fact is people wouldn't be handing all that money to "them" if not for receiving something of equal/greater value in return.

Would you argue that the fact that people who CHOOSE to hand over their money live in a society in which they are taught to do so by more and more intrusive means, and of which the entire value system is constantly being manipulated by means only available to the "handee" doesn't factor in at all?

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#43

Post by paulhauggis »

quinnchr wrote: post #21
civilian wrote: post #3

Yup. Using humans to get stuff done isn't our only option anymore, so a difference between the stock market and labor market isn't surprising. I live in a liberal area and I'm facebook friends with a lot of Burners (people who have gone to burning man). I see a ton of image macros and posts where people are implying that it's a moral wrong that businesses are doing well while we have high unemployment. :-/ For me, on…

How is it not immoral? Why should employees work full time yet still need food stamps to get by, while employers see record profits? How is it moral to not pay someone a living wage, while the wages at the top go up? http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-...

How often is this really happening? and what is the cause?

Is it because the employer isn't paying employees enough or is it because the employee made poor life decisions (had kids too early, didn't learn any marketable skills, etc)?

Minimum wage isn't meant to support an entire family. There are plenty of places you can rent these days that are cheap (Just looking on craiglist, I can see rooms for rent that someone can easily afford on minimum wage) and you can buy cheap food (Walmart is the cheapest in my area).

It isn't ideal or easy, but it's not impossible. A bigger problem is the education of our citizens on life decisions that may cause difficult times for many years to come in their future. No amount of government regulation will solve these issues.

The other problem is globalization. Many people here love the Internet and the freedom it brings, but it also brings competition from countries like China and India.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#44

Post by yummyfajitas »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #35
acslater00 wrote: post #22

Couple things here. First, corporate profits are aberrantly high for a number of reasons, none of which are likely to be permanent. John Hussman, an analyst whom I respect deeply, has a good discussion of this from the perspective of stock valuations, but the basic point is relevant here. [ http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc130408.htm ] Second, while I agree that this is "the story" in a purely journalistic sense, i…

Income inequality is a useful statistic for more purposes than just describing the strength of incentives in a system. Surely it is also one measure (amongst many) of the fairness of a system; a measure of how truly egalitarian a society really is.

How so?

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#45

Post by Thiz »

Wealth is good, even for a very few, for the many will benefit from it in the long run.

Wealth acquired from evil means, like corruption, theft, coercion and taxation, is evil no matter your moral stance, and that's the only wealth that should be fought against and given back to its original owners.

Whatever the means and however the distribution methods.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#46

Post by platz »

jbooth wrote: post #29
acslater00 wrote: post #22

Couple things here. First, corporate profits are aberrantly high for a number of reasons, none of which are likely to be permanent. John Hussman, an analyst whom I respect deeply, has a good discussion of this from the perspective of stock valuations, but the basic point is relevant here. [ http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc130408.htm ] Second, while I agree that this is "the story" in a purely journalistic sense, i…

I think the biggest problem of incentives can be summed up as: It's much more profitable to do a mediocre job in banking than to do a world-changing job of actually building things. Proximity to money is worth more than actual ingenuity.

The job of actually building things belongs to the lower and middle classes. It has most always been a point of distinction for the upper class that they aren't concerned with utility. Part of the point of being upper class is freeing yourself from having to do utilitarian work.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#47

Post by sageikosa »

civilian wrote: post #41
sageikosa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Herein lies the problem with the job creators argument. It is not fundamentally wrong, but it is wrong for the current level of inequality. We are past the optimum and, for society and the economy to gain efficiency, inequality must be reduced. Are you suggesting we get rid of the unemployed? That would certainly increase "society efficiency", I think (not sure how we measure that again). But if we want to reduce s…

Yeahhh, I don't think that's what he was suggesting. You were proving Godwin's Law, right?

No. Since he's advocating chucking morality out the window, I can only assume he had something special and immoral planned (which largely went unexplicitly stated). The most efficient isn't to spread a limited wealth over a large number of people, but to reduce the number of people with little wealth. After all, since we've thrown out the concept of society as a means to protect principles of justice for individuals, we can surely afford to sacrifice some individuals for those lucky enough to be left in the selected set.

But you're right, he was probably only suggesting theft.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#48

Post by ctdonath »

boomlinde wrote: post #42
ctdonath wrote: post #15

Supply and demand. More people are increasingly willing to give more money to fewer people. The key is WILLING. People CHOOSE to hand over their money. For all the complaints/accusations about unfair business practices etc., fact is people wouldn't be handing all that money to "them" if not for receiving something of equal/greater value in return.

Would you argue that the fact that people who CHOOSE to hand over their money live in a society in which they are taught to do so by more and more intrusive means, and of which the entire value system is constantly being manipulated by means only available to the "handee" doesn't factor in at all?

Of course I'd argue the "fact". It isn't one.

Are there centralized influences, operating toward their own interests? Of course. Always have been. Those pursuing an effective strategy of sales & social normalization of X do so because it pays off. In a world of increasingly homogeneous media domination, putting up significant sums to buy influence pays off - hence the increasing concentration of wealth, supplying what can be marketed to increase demand.

This influence is not, however, infinite/total in scope. Options exist. You don't have to buy into anything "they" manipulate you to. It's still a choice. You can say "no" and buy elsewhere or do it yourself. Corporations are not gods; they are not omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent, and do not strike you down with brimstone if you fail to buy their goods/services. You can turn off the TV, choose your own teachers & influences, and spend your money with whomever will trade as you see fair.

That much of society submits to such influences, well, that's their choice. I've chosen not to abide by those choices in large part, and know that where I do it's MY choice, and that I have options thereto.

Selfish influence arguments aside, there's also the matter of just doing a good job supplying what people need. People need Y, company Z does a remarkably good job of supplying it, people pay what it's worth to them (or less, what a great value!), and Z pockets the net profits. So? What's wrong with reaping rewards for a job well done?

BTW: This is Hacker News, on Y-Combinator, devoted to the notion that anyone can concoct something techy and - with a goal of profit - persuade others to buy it.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#49

Post by bjhoops1 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #44
bjhoops1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income inequality is a useful statistic for more purposes than just describing the strength of incentives in a system. Surely it is also one measure (amongst many) of the fairness of a system; a measure of how truly egalitarian a society really is.

How so?

Suppose a society in which a few families owned and controlled essentially all wealth. I don't imagine that society could be said to be egalitarian or equitable no matter what laws or "rights" its citizens had, do you?

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#50

Post by ctdonath »

quinnchr wrote: post #21
civilian wrote: post #3

Yup. Using humans to get stuff done isn't our only option anymore, so a difference between the stock market and labor market isn't surprising. I live in a liberal area and I'm facebook friends with a lot of Burners (people who have gone to burning man). I see a ton of image macros and posts where people are implying that it's a moral wrong that businesses are doing well while we have high unemployment. :-/ For me, on…

How is it not immoral? Why should employees work full time yet still need food stamps to get by, while employers see record profits? How is it moral to not pay someone a living wage, while the wages at the top go up? http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-...

How moral is it to not earn a living wage, but expect others to supply it anyway?
Post reply on HN