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

181–190 of 289 posts

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

#181

Post by 3pt14159 »

sbov wrote: post #49
legitster wrote: post #27

To me it is pretty ridiculous how much labor is taxed, and how little capital is taxed. Especially if we are worried about automation and lack of productivity growth, it seems so counter-intuitive that we are completely stuck to a tax system that devalues workers.

The reason is simple: labor has less options. Capital can mostly go where it pleases - if it is taxed too much it might flee the country. But your 160 million workers aren't going to uproot themselves and move to another country because they're too heavily taxed.

Though I agree with you to a point, I'm careful not to take this first pass understanding too far. A socially cohesive society with well funded infrastructure, reliable courts, low inflation, stable interest rates, and an educated populace makes for a very attractive investment area.

Sweden has a capital gains tax of 30%, two to three times that of America and they have a similar GDP per capita, depending on the year.

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

#182

Post by Redoubts »

sbov wrote: post #49
legitster wrote: post #27

To me it is pretty ridiculous how much labor is taxed, and how little capital is taxed. Especially if we are worried about automation and lack of productivity growth, it seems so counter-intuitive that we are completely stuck to a tax system that devalues workers.

The reason is simple: labor has less options. Capital can mostly go where it pleases - if it is taxed too much it might flee the country. But your 160 million workers aren't going to uproot themselves and move to another country because they're too heavily taxed.

Tax land; you can't just walk off with that.

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

#183

Post by Itaxpica »

3pt14159 wrote: post #173
colordrops wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common discussion item here at HN. Really it only makes sense to work at a startup in the following scenarios: you are founder, you are new and need experience, you are getting paid very well, or you don't care about money and love the work. Trying to get rich as a non founder is a fools game.

Well, this isn't completely true. Founders are much more likely to make ten or a hundred million than first hires, but first hires are at least as likely to make $500k to $3m as founders, especially in net present value accounting terms, and not even adjusting for risk adjusted returns or opportunity cost differences. Most startups don't get to first hire. Most startups have founders that don't just make nothing, the…

This is true, but there's opportunity cost as well: those same first hires would be significantly more likely to make that 500k-3mil over a few years at a FAAMG-type company, anyway.

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

#184

Post by s73v3r_ »

israelisreal wrote: post #76
isostatic wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All paid for by those who don't go into the military–industrial complex, but instead pay enormous taxes to fund it. The kid fixing broken windows does well too. The U.S. accounts for 35% of the world's defence spending, more than twice that of Russia and China together.

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.

The current incarnation of the military has done exactly nothing to protect me, and likely has taken actions to make things more dangerous for me.

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

#185

Post by bluGill »

lovich wrote: post #101
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people who choose not to vote aren't being systematically repressed. They're just too indifferent and/or lazy to participate.

We've had 5 occasions where the president lost the popular vote but won't the election and 2 of them were in the past 18 years. Do you think most people look at that situation and go "if only I had voted, then things would be different". Between that and a few court rulings that have turned the major elections into an event only the rich and their friends can partake in, I don't see how it's not people bring systemat…

That the popular vote isn't who wins is a feature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority. Of course if you are in the majority that lost you hate it, while the minority like it.

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

#187

Post by ww520 »

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…

Early employees really got the worst deal. The amount of risks is similar to founders but the equity share is much less.

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

#188

Post by Art9681 »

israelisreal wrote: post #166
Art9681 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a veteran that had to enlist so I could get out of poverty. I also lean left. Let me say this out of a little spite since you decided to get political: If you and your daughter's mother made the "right" decisions, your daughter wouldn't have to enlist in the military to have a chance at a good life. I'll show myself out now.

Fair enough, but it's her choice. She is choosing this path largely because she doesn't want to attend college in a traditional setting and deal with the kinds of BS that plague colleges now. My daughter leans hard right, again her choice, and in many ways she is further right than me or her mother. My daughter wants to do things her own way, and the Air Force is the way she wants to do it. Who am I to stop her? She'…

Thank you for a civil response. I apologize for my comment. I also want to add that you painted a very rosy picture of the military and while under ideal conditions everything you said can occur, the reality could be much different.

Also, what triggered me was your “leftist” comment. The military is essentially a social welfare system funded by tax payers. I’ve never met a person who joined because they wanted to be a hero or because of some sort of prestige. Almost everyone joins because of the benefits or travel or because their families forced the issue, among other reasons. It would be great if our government offered similar incentives using tax money for other career paths. As I understand it, it’s a “leftist” ideal that is constantly being shot down by the “right”. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

Anyway, you seem like a decent man and your daughter sounds like she was raised well. I’m sure she will make a fine officer someday.

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

#189

Post by dv_dt »

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…

Here's an idea. Expect some differential vs the biggest cashflow established companies vs a middle/small company, but don't take a paycut vs a reference of an established company. The equity should be an bonus attractor, but odds are it will be worth nothing. So the opportunity cost is the cut x number of years, and for that you're buying 1.8% equity with pays out in a 1/10 instance (and maybe not in any significant amount even if it does pay off). If the non-financial aspects appeal, then fine, but realize you're paying for that difference.

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

#190

Post by kolpa »

Redoubts wrote: post #182
sbov wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is simple: labor has less options. Capital can mostly go where it pleases - if it is taxed too much it might flee the country. But your 160 million workers aren't going to uproot themselves and move to another country because they're too heavily taxed.

Tax land; you can't just walk off with that.

That's a start, but land is only a small fraction of capital.
Post reply on HN