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

Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 289 posts

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#121

Post by ssully »

israelisreal wrote: post #92
headcanon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy for your daughter, but I'm not sure what your point is. State service can be a rewarding career path, I don't think that is in debate here.

The post was meant to state that there are paths that do not require going into mounting debt. The military is a fine path for those who are wired that way. It teaches discipline, team work, being a part of something bigger than yourself, and in return you basically live for free, largely pocketing the lion's share of your income. A young person can get a degree at night in the military (free) and if they like the mi…

A lot of what you say is true, while also casually ignoring the many downsides to being in the military (such as being in situations where you are forced to kill or be killed).

I have a lot of respect for the military, and part of that comes from the incredibly high cost most military members face. Not only the potential to lose their life, but to come back carrying a strong mental weight, and to typically have to fight tooth and nail to get the benefits they were promised for signing up for in the first place.

To say your posts in this thread are disingenuous would be putting it lightly.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#122

Post by rhcom2 »

arblegobblebrbl wrote: post #40
wavefunction wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard for working-class people to get away from their jobs to vote.

Its the law that you must be given time away from your job to vote.

Not in every state. https://aflcio.org/2016/11/5/know-your-rights-state-laws-emp...

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#123

Post by adamwong246 »

bluntfang wrote: post #100
israelisreal wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are paying for it by your service, which only 1% of the population serves. I have nothing but respect for the military and those who serve. People need to stand behind the troops or in front of them. People sleep well at night because of the military and their sacrifice.

except for all those people in poverty who don't sleep or eat well.

don't forget the collateral damage caused by those troops. Americans might get to sleep well and eat well, but those yemeni weddings guests who got droned get neither.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#124

Post by pembrook »

methodover wrote: post #79

The allocation of profits in startups, at least, feels... problematic. I was the #2 engineer hire when I was hired five years ago. Since then, we haven't become super successful -- yet -- but we're at least at breakeven. We have three engineers and we're working on a huge new project that hopefully will really grow the company. I have 1.8% equity. Sometimes when I'm working late or working on the weekend, which is of…

That's not what the Fed chair is talking about. Nobody is concerned about wages in tech. Tech is one of the few industries that has the opposite of a stagnant wage growth problem.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#125

Post by dragonwriter »

csense wrote: post #52

40-50 years ago, a young person fresh out of high school could get a job that allowed them to live the middle class life -- own a house and support a family with only one spouse needing to work. Nowadays even college graduates struggle to achieve "liftoff." Globalization has led to a race-to-the-bottom situation where jobs flow across borders, to the places where desperate poverty allows wages to be as low as possibl…

> There's a lot I don't like about Trump, but I think his tariffs really will make America great again

Tariffs won't do that.

Trade negotiation aimed at trade deals with strong common (not necessarily identical but converting over time) labor and environmental protections—where the partners with weaker protection in reach sub-area catch up over time to those starting out with stronger protection—so that competition is on a progrrssively leveling field, rather than a race to the bottom, would help.

Tariffs might have utility as leverage in such negotiations, but while this administration may make noises a better trade deals, they haven't shown interest in labor or environmental protections domestically or internationally, so they don't seem likely to use tariffs in the only way in which they might contribute to solving the problem rather than making it worse.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#126

Post by gricardo99 »

methodover wrote: post #103
tramGG wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried asking for more equity? Negotiating new terms is fine if you feel you deserve it and are passionate about your work.

I'm pretty sure the equity I have is already incredibly generous for an employee. But yes, I did bring up the issue a couple weeks ago. He doesn't believe we're in a position to go to the board and make any changes to stock compensation at this time. He thinks we should first figure out how to accelerate (with this new project) and then we'd be in a better position to ask for more stock for employees from the board.

That's an interesting excuse...

If the founders control the company, then they can dictate the terms of employee compensation. To a degree at least... I guess they cannot unilaterally make decisions that completely piss-off and alienate their investors, or good luck with series B.

If the VCs control the company, then I'm sure their response would be "we offer industry standard x% of equity, so there's no reason to offer more".

Chicken and egg problem. It won't change until someone changes it.

Another thought: Where would the increase in employee equity come from? Would the founders dilute their share, or expect all shareholders to dilute? If it's just the founders deciding to be more generous, then why should the board have a problem? The board should be absolutely in favor of founder-only dilution, since it costs other investors nothing, and ostensibly results in a more motivated workforce.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#127

Post by DenisM »

methodover wrote: post #103
tramGG wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried asking for more equity? Negotiating new terms is fine if you feel you deserve it and are passionate about your work.

I'm pretty sure the equity I have is already incredibly generous for an employee. But yes, I did bring up the issue a couple weeks ago. He doesn't believe we're in a position to go to the board and make any changes to stock compensation at this time. He thinks we should first figure out how to accelerate (with this new project) and then we'd be in a better position to ask for more stock for employees from the board.

At 5 years you're fully vested. You should get a stock/options refresh if they want you to stay.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#128

Post by zjaffee »

israelisreal wrote: post #72
csense wrote: post #52

40-50 years ago, a young person fresh out of high school could get a job that allowed them to live the middle class life -- own a house and support a family with only one spouse needing to work. Nowadays even college graduates struggle to achieve "liftoff." Globalization has led to a race-to-the-bottom situation where jobs flow across borders, to the places where desperate poverty allows wages to be as low as possibl…

I agree. I remember those days. At 50, I've been in IT now for 3 decades. The pay in IT has decreased as well. My dad pulled a family of four along on his salary and we were comfortable, but not rich. I lacked nothing. However... when I turned 10, I came home one day from school and there was a brand new mower sitting in the driveway with a gas can and a rope. My dad said, "Son, canvas the neighborhood and charge $5-…

The median student loan debt is inching towards the median starting income for college graduates, something that massively sets people back in their ability to move forward in their life and do things such as purchase a home. Add on to the fact that job growth has concentrated into a few cities that are rapidly becoming more expensive and you have what we have today.

If wage growth matched productivity gains, a lot of these problems would be non issues. Nothing in here has anything to do with entitlement.

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#129

Post by vturner »

Why doesn't the stock market act as a balancing system to low wages? Lowering wages implies higher efficiency thus resulting in higher profits which ultimately end up in "investors" pockets. Why are these "investors" not the common American "worker" whose wages are low? Why has the market not created such an instrument to supplement the "worker" who has low wages but could ultimately profit from the ever-increasingly efficient economy?

This is an honest question whose answer I ponder. Why doesn't the stock market act as a great redistributor of capitalistic wealth?

Re: Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling'

#130

Post by extradego »

test6554 wrote: post #108
wavefunction wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you should probably start researching now if a 20% capital gains rate makes you think "Latin America" outweighs an additional 5% in taxes.

If Bernie Sanders was elected, I wouldn't just move my money. I'd take my chances with the cartels. Free health care, free tuition, $15 minimum wage, guaranteed sick days and paid time off. Universal basic income, unicorns, etc. And the 3-5 trillion dollars it costs each year can just be paid by either the wealthy or by placing crippling debt upon future generations. Either way, free stuff is good.

Same here. I would rather die than share with dirty poor people.
Post reply on HN