Federal Reserve chair says decline in workers' share of profits 'very troubling' • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by pimmen » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:02 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #107

colordrops wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the same lawmakers that sit on the boards of so many multinational corporations? Might as well ask for world peace.

Are you thinking of any specific one out of the "so many" examples, or are you assuming? Because for Senators, it's illegal to sit on a corporate board, and for Members of Congress, it's only legal if the position is unpaid: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10976/legislati... .

However their relatives can sit on boards, so a senator's spouse would be fair game. And they can use the paid board gig to make money between terms.

Susan Bayh, ex senator and governor from and Indiana married to another senator, sat on multiple boards between her own political terms and while her husband was in office (also while she was governor). She's been on at least 14 boards in total: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Bayh

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

#212

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:02 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #86

anon12341234 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the money they use to go to bars, pay for netflix, eat out at restaurants, go to concerts, buy video games, etcetera etcetera. Almost every person who claims to have no money to invest actually has plenty of money; they just squander it on immediate gratification.

If you took all the money a person on a limited income spends on Netflix, restaurants and games they could scrounge up enough money to buy a trailer home in the middle of Nebraska just before they die of old age. The reason people don't save every penny is because pennies don't matter any more. The price of housing, medical care, and education is becoming so overwhelming that everything else pales in comparison. This…

It has never been that easy. "Poor starving college student" was a saying back then because college students barely had any money.

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

#213

Post by gbacon » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

walru wrote: post #24

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #3

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.

You are responsible for your rate of savings. I am responsible for mine.

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

#214

Post by digikata » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #107

colordrops wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the same lawmakers that sit on the boards of so many multinational corporations? Might as well ask for world peace.

Are you thinking of any specific one out of the "so many" examples, or are you assuming? Because for Senators, it's illegal to sit on a corporate board, and for Members of Congress, it's only legal if the position is unpaid: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10976/legislati... .

"Unpaid", but members of congress are allowed to inside trade, and their portfolios are curiously successful.

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

#215

Post by gbacon » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

kolpa wrote: post #203

vturner wrote: post #129

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…

If you don't have high wages you can't buy stock.

False.

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

#216

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

Art9681 wrote: post #115

israelisreal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

This is true for poor people, but I know kids who have gone into the military form backgrounds where they could have gone other routes. They have the background to get a student loan to pay for everything.

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

#217

Post by gbacon » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #145

vturner wrote: post #129

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…

> Why are these "investors" not the common American "worker" whose wages are low? Because workers don't have money to buy stock, so they don't get the gains from stock appreciation. And because workers are taxed vastly more heavily than investors at the same income level, people who don't stay out living off investments rather than wage labor are, even if m with the same pre-tax income, greatly disadvantaged at accum…

Because workers don't have money to buy stock

Nonsense.

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

#218

Post by kingnothing » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #168

jrjarrett wrote: post #83

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?

The recent tax cuts will take a few years to filter though the economy to workers - at best. Thus it is incorrect use results to judge any policy until many years have passed. This is the nature of most things that the government does, and why it is really hard to figure out what is best. There are ways to make judgement that are not based on results, but they always subject to their own biases.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

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

#219

Post by kolpa » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #31

noobermin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, this isn't a moral argument (at least it need not be), practically people cannot invest in anything and yield an actually substantial return. Almost half(E) people in the US cannot weather a $400 emergency without going into debt, how could they possibly have enough money to invest for either themselves or their children? This arguably would be only valuable for people in the middle class to upper middle class.…

If one has internet, one can invest in oneself through education in very tangible lucrative ways. Never before has access to so much knowledge been available from MIT courses to marketing books, much of which is free.

That doesn't help people who are getting paid less for doing useful work with the skills they already have.

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

#220

Post by dv_dt » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

kolpa wrote: post #197

oflannabhra wrote: post #18

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.

When the Fed bailed out the banks with QE1,2,3 they chose a program they allocated money to the banks which let them out of their losses while individual borrowers bore the brunt of the recession.