Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

191–200 of 289 posts

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

#191

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…

> Sometimes when I'm working late or working on the weekend, which is often, I wonder: Is this really worth it?

The key problem in your (all too common) story is that you're only waking up to reality now.

I'm guessing that like most startup employees, you were swayed by initial aggressive courtship by the founders / chief-execs, with lots of vague handwaving and hyperboles telling you that you'll definitely become a zillionaire with your "generous" equity.

After 5 years (!) of hard work you finally crunched the hard numbers, and realized your best-case exit might cover a bit of what you lose in one year of overworking yourself for a below-market salary. Your founders and managers forgot to tell you this, and probably stuck to hyperboles without divulging much real info about your equity. Far from making it easy for you to understand your equity value, they probably made it hard or impossible.

I wish your story was some dysfunctional exception, but unfortunately it seems to be the rule nowadays. In fact, I know all too many engineers who faced this sad music only after the exit, for which they got shockingly modest returns.

I can also tell you to forget about your equity being 1.8%. It's incredibly unlikely you'll actually get 1.8% of whatever monetary value your startup exits for - if any. Like most startups, certainly in your position, you are looking at more funding rounds. The investors will get additional shares, you will get diluted. Of course, the founders will tell you nothing about this, you'll just see it in your bottom line - if there ever is any.

In fact, in your place I wouldn't be so sure you actually have that 1.8% right now.

You should do one of two things:

1. Ask for a lot more equity, with transparency into the amount and valuation. 2. Start quietly looking for an employer that will pay you better, and work you less.

From your perspective, you are already fully vested. There's no reward for you taking additional risk. No sense in staying to be underpaid and overworked. Even you want to stay in startup-land, find a new startup to diversify your equity portfolio, which currently consists of one tiny slice of a risky startup.

Your current startup likely won't collapse if you leave, so you're not risking your existing equity. If your departure would be so devastating, they should give you a lot more equity.

Either way, do a clear cost-benefit analysis, and do what is right for you. Your founders are doing what's right for them, and so are the investors. Follow suite.

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

#192
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…

But he is going about it completely wrong. Imposing tarriffs on things we need to produce when we cannot meet our own demand, and won't ever again only lets other countries impose tarriffs on things we NEED to sell. Take steel for example: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268683/us-steel-demand-s... In 2017 the US needed 100M metric tons of steel as raw material. We only produced 23M tons. Where is that difference…

It is the long game. The US is paying more, but we are also looking elsewhere for steel. Thus it hurts China as well. This puts pressure on China to change. It is a long game played by those willing to take short term hurt for a long term wins.

I don't agree with this strategy, but it does have some sense in its own way.

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

#193
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top corporate tax rate in 2017: 35%. [1] Typical individual income tax: 30%. [2] [1] https://www.thebalancesmb.com/corporate-tax-rates-and-tax-ca... [2] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/03/04/whats-the-average...

Absolutely nobody pays the actual statutory corporate tax rate, the average tax rate paid by US business after applying loopholes and so on is 22-24%: [1], and about a fifth of profitable companies pay no tax at all: [2]. This is so well-known and obvious that even mentioning the 35% rate at all is evidence of bad-faith arguing. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporat... [2] https://www.forbe…

It's not even a relevant comparison. "Corporations" don't spend profits on luxuries for themselves. Their human owners do. Owners pay capital gains tax (which you can argue is too high or low or too easily avoided.)

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

#194
post #170

Shocking. SHOCKING, I say. The recent tax cuts were touted to generate big raises for American workers. A few companies made some news with one-time payouts, but then the rest of that is just being funneled to shareholders. If a government creates laws that incent shareholder givebacks, you wonder why workers' share of profits aren't increasing?

Become a shareholder. Save and invest more.

I will as soon as I get some wages for my work, but unfortunately that's unlikely, per the OP article.

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

#196

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…

Are you suggesting some kind of "American Dividend" for all citizens?

Yes, why hasn't this arisen naturally? Are the potential profits too low to collect the meager income of many low-wage Americans and then redistribute the gains over time?

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

#197

Powell also spoke to this in a recent interview with Marketplace[0] >Ryssdal: I want to get to the regulatory part of your job, which you address right there in a second, but I want to first talk about some of the things that came out of the financial crisis that we're still dealing with. And maybe the most relevant for consumers in this economy is the idea that wages now for a decade or more really have been stuck.…

To be charitable, the Fed runs the money supply, but they don't control who gets the money. It's the job of Congress to regulate corporations and unions and minimum-wage and all that jazz.

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

#198

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…

There's a barrier to entry and a requirement in regards to education that are intrinsic in the stock market. You also need liquid cash you're willing to part with, and in large enough amounts to matter. And in between the stock market and the worker are a ton of predatory "advisers" who would rather suck someone dry with fees than ever see the worker profit. I'm finally at a point where I have enough liquid cash to f…

Me too...started reading some stock investing/trading books. What lingo and complexities.

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

#199
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the Federal Reserve is not responsible for labor law and the like. They are clearly very late in their response, but it's notable that a non-political organization felt the need to comment.

The Fed is responsible for the savings rate of the average American, which is to say, it's absolutely worthless to stick your money in the bank and watch it grow, which would help starve off what they're talking about here.

The average American has no particular reason to stick with a "savings account". They could buy equities and ETFs that are as simple as savings accounts.

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

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a barrier to entry and a requirement in regards to education that are intrinsic in the stock market. You also need liquid cash you're willing to part with, and in large enough amounts to matter. And in between the stock market and the worker are a ton of predatory "advisers" who would rather suck someone dry with fees than ever see the worker profit. I'm finally at a point where I have enough liquid cash to f…

Me too...started reading some stock investing/trading books. What lingo and complexities.

I even have friends who are accountants / actively participate and I get nothing but mixed messages.
Post reply on HN