Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you • Hacker News Board

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#391

Post by overrun11 » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

diordiderot wrote: post #362

overrun11 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The median shareholder in Microsoft, Google and Amazon is likely a lower economic class than the median employee at these corporations if I had to guess. The framing of ordinary workers getting the boot so fat cats can buy bigger yachts is seductive but I can just as easily frame it as: Fixed income, middle America boomers entrusted these companies to be good stewards of their capital but it was instead spent on payi…

> The median shareholder in Microsoft, Google and Amazon is likely a lower economic class than the median employee at these corporations if > I had to guess. You guess incorrectly

Any evidence?

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#392

Post by overrun11 » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

jujugoboom wrote: post #274

overrun11 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The median shareholder in Microsoft, Google and Amazon is likely a lower economic class than the median employee at these corporations if I had to guess. The framing of ordinary workers getting the boot so fat cats can buy bigger yachts is seductive but I can just as easily frame it as: Fixed income, middle America boomers entrusted these companies to be good stewards of their capital but it was instead spent on payi…

This is such a poor faith argument that completely ignores any reality. These companies have had a massive last decade or so, and if what you're saying is really the case, then we would see booming levels of wealth in middle america among the elderly. Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of Americans, with the lions share of wealth created during the last 2 years of resurgent economic boom going to the to…

> we would see booming levels of wealth in middle america among the elderly.

I'd be interested to see evidence but I suspect we did see this? Retirement portfolios and housing prices (where the majority of elderly wealth is) ballooned.

> Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of American

The elderly are the richest Americans so this is consistent with the elderly getting wealthier.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#393

Post by pas » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 7:20 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #276

pas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain it. It might be a factor, but it's not a big factor. FAANG jobs pay extremely well and then there's the stock on top. Is the vast majority working at these companies (with years of vesting, no?) so shortsighted? Especially the higher ups? Is it a requirement at these companies that you have to be 10000% in debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck to be a SVP/VP/director/whatever so you have to be hyp…

> FAANG jobs pay extremely well and then there's the stock on top. When excluding RSUs, FAANG jobs are not extreme in any way. RSUs are not a cherry on top but an important component of remuneration. Often for mid-level and above (roughly TL/staff engineer and Manager-II), the value of RSUs is more than 50% of total compensation.

tech/IT salaries are very high compared the median income of the country/region. and FAANG base salaries are top of that, so ... I would say they are infact extreme.

and then there's stock on top.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#394

Post by jujugoboom » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 4:33 AM UTC

overrun11 wrote: post #392

jujugoboom wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a poor faith argument that completely ignores any reality. These companies have had a massive last decade or so, and if what you're saying is really the case, then we would see booming levels of wealth in middle america among the elderly. Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of Americans, with the lions share of wealth created during the last 2 years of resurgent economic boom going to the to…

> we would see booming levels of wealth in middle america among the elderly. I'd be interested to see evidence but I suspect we did see this? Retirement portfolios and housing prices (where the majority of elderly wealth is) ballooned. > Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of American The elderly are the richest Americans so this is consistent with the elderly getting wealthier.

Retirement accounts are largely a benefit enjoyed by those well-enough off to have them [1], as well as owning a home. So while yes, these indicators have increased, it only speaks to how the bulk of wealth created since 2008 has gone to mostly well-off individuals. And while yes, wealth is overall heavily weighted to older generations, it does not change the fact that the only people who are rich are the rich, regardless of age. While most wealthy people are boomers, most boomers are not wealthy. If you look at economic insecurity (200% FPL), the elderly in America are over-represented, with a rate of about 33% compared to ~27% overall[2].

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/08/who-has-retir... [2] https://ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-on-economic-security-...

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#395

Post by jujugoboom » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:14 AM UTC

xapata wrote: post #377

jujugoboom wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no clue where you're finding that lower income workers are experiencing any real wage gains, let alone at a significant rate. Home ownership as a percentage of population has never recovered anywhere near pre-2008 levels, so on behalf of myself and most people in my generation and cohort, I couldn't care less if homeowners have more money, that fact is having less of a bearing on our real world with each day.…

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/opinion/inflation-poor-in... "The labor economist Arindrajit Dube has estimated hourly wage changes — by decile rather than quartile — over a longer period, since the beginning of the pandemic recession. He finds that real wages for the bottom 40 percent of workers have actually increased".

While yes, real wages for the bottom 50% have increased according to FRED data, that trend only appears if you look at data from 2020-2022. If you look a little further back, to about 2008, you'll find that real wages for the bottom 50% has grown at a much slower rate than those in the top 50%[1]. This also all ignores that percentages are deceiving when looking at small windows of data, and only suggests how current situations may compare to previous situations, not the overall situation someone is in. Many of the people in the bottom 50%, and especially as you get into lower deciles, have not been in a good place for a while now, and while real wage growth is great, it does little to truly improve their situations (remember, percentages result in a lower actual value when your starting value is lower). If you really wanted to make this argument, then you could pull up net worth data that shows a 110% increase from 2020-2022 for the bottom 50% compared to only a 27% increase for the top 0.1%, but then someone might show you a graph of the data and ask for you to point to the 110% increase[2]. I don't know what it is with weirdos online trying to cherry-pick data to try and prove poor people aren't poor, but it's really getting old.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/WCrJ40c [2] https://imgur.com/a/t1tQe4n

Edit: also interesting to point out that 2020-2022 has included things like direct-to-citizen stimulus checks, and large government investment in the form of the build back better package. If anything, it is a testament that direct aid to people struggling does more to improve their immediate situation than any other solution proposed by neoliberals and the GOP. If that is your argument, then I will agree with you, and say we should do more, like a UBI and increased taxes on the wealthy to start to undo decades of socioeconomic stratification.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#396

Post by xapata » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

jujugoboom wrote: post #395

xapata wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/opinion/inflation-poor-in... "The labor economist Arindrajit Dube has estimated hourly wage changes — by decile rather than quartile — over a longer period, since the beginning of the pandemic recession. He finds that real wages for the bottom 40 percent of workers have actually increased".

While yes, real wages for the bottom 50% have increased according to FRED data, that trend only appears if you look at data from 2020-2022. If you look a little further back, to about 2008, you'll find that real wages for the bottom 50% has grown at a much slower rate than those in the top 50%[1]. This also all ignores that percentages are deceiving when looking at small windows of data, and only suggests how current…

> If that is your argument

I wasn't arguing for a particular point, but I do happen to advocate for basic income policies funded by progressive taxes.

> to about 2008

I must have overlooked that you were talking about a longer time period than the pandemic. Most people recently have been discussing the stimulus policies and correlated (not necessarily caused) inflation. There's been a trend of saying they were counter-productive for lower income households, which is not supported by FRED measurements.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#397

Post by jujugoboom » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

xapata wrote: post #396

jujugoboom wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While yes, real wages for the bottom 50% have increased according to FRED data, that trend only appears if you look at data from 2020-2022. If you look a little further back, to about 2008, you'll find that real wages for the bottom 50% has grown at a much slower rate than those in the top 50%[1]. This also all ignores that percentages are deceiving when looking at small windows of data, and only suggests how current…

> If that is your argument I wasn't arguing for a particular point, but I do happen to advocate for basic income policies funded by progressive taxes. > to about 2008 I must have overlooked that you were talking about a longer time period than the pandemic. Most people recently have been discussing the stimulus policies and correlated (not necessarily caused) inflation. There's been a trend of saying they were counte…

> I wasn't arguing for a particular point

From my original comment, my statement you took issue with was

> Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of Americans, with the lions share of wealth created during the last 2 years of resurgent economic boom going to the top 1% of Americans

which is a very substantiated claim[1]. Your counter argument was that in the same time frame, the bottom 40% have seen real wage gains. My counter to that argument is that while it is true, it still doesn't reflect where most of the money is actually going, and is a disingenuous argument that makes the situations of the lower 50% seem better than it is. I never argued that stimulus policies were bad for lower-income households. Not sure what point you're trying to make to me.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-alm...

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#398

Post by xapata » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 11:01 PM UTC

jujugoboom wrote: post #397

xapata wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that is your argument I wasn't arguing for a particular point, but I do happen to advocate for basic income policies funded by progressive taxes. > to about 2008 I must have overlooked that you were talking about a longer time period than the pandemic. Most people recently have been discussing the stimulus policies and correlated (not necessarily caused) inflation. There's been a trend of saying they were counte…

> I wasn't arguing for a particular point From my original comment, my statement you took issue with was > Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of Americans, with the lions share of wealth created during the last 2 years of resurgent economic boom going to the top 1% of Americans which is a very substantiated claim[1]. Your counter argument was that in the same time frame, the bottom 40% have seen real wa…

> Not sure what point you're trying to make to me.

I wanted to add nuance to the statement about most wealth going to the top. The last two years have also been great for (some groups of) poorer Americans. Real wages had been going down since the 1970s. Now, up (for some cohorts). Unemployment is down.

The world has detail.

If I had to make a point, I suppose it'd be that summaries can be misleading. But, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate of points and counter-points. There's no judge here, awarding victory and speaker points. I suppose upvotes are tracked, but we've moved off the front page. Not so much traffic to give us a sample.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#399

Post by jujugoboom » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 12:34 AM UTC

xapata wrote: post #398

jujugoboom wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wasn't arguing for a particular point From my original comment, my statement you took issue with was > Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of Americans, with the lions share of wealth created during the last 2 years of resurgent economic boom going to the top 1% of Americans which is a very substantiated claim[1]. Your counter argument was that in the same time frame, the bottom 40% have seen real wa…

> Not sure what point you're trying to make to me. I wanted to add nuance to the statement about most wealth going to the top. The last two years have also been great for (some groups of) poorer Americans. Real wages had been going down since the 1970s. Now, up (for some cohorts). Unemployment is down. The world has detail. If I had to make a point, I suppose it'd be that summaries can be misleading. But, I'm not int…

> If I had to make a point, I suppose it'd be that summaries can be misleading.

Then I guess I have to agree with you, when discussing where wealth went during 2020, and the state of the lower 50% of Americans, it is misleading to only point out that the lower ~50% experienced wage growth without also pointing out that a majority share of overall wealth still went to the 1% and that the real gains have still not caught up with the terrible situation they've been in for years. As for the original point, the claim that the majority of wealth created since 2020 has gone to the 1% is not made any more nuanced by including that real wages have increased for the bottom 50%, as all it does is distract from the actual issues at hand.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#400

Post by xapata » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 4:40 PM UTC

jujugoboom wrote: post #399

xapata wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure what point you're trying to make to me. I wanted to add nuance to the statement about most wealth going to the top. The last two years have also been great for (some groups of) poorer Americans. Real wages had been going down since the 1970s. Now, up (for some cohorts). Unemployment is down. The world has detail. If I had to make a point, I suppose it'd be that summaries can be misleading. But, I'm not int…

> If I had to make a point, I suppose it'd be that summaries can be misleading. Then I guess I have to agree with you, when discussing where wealth went during 2020, and the state of the lower 50% of Americans, it is misleading to only point out that the lower ~50% experienced wage growth without also pointing out that a majority share of overall wealth still went to the 1% and that the real gains have still not caug…

> distract from the actual issues at hand.

On the contrary, noticing that real wages increased for the poorest 40% may motivate policies like a universal income / citizen dividend. Perhaps a higher steady state inflation is necessary, 4% instead of 2%, to keep unemployment low and real wages rising for the poorest.

Have you considered what happened to the wealthiest 1% as inflation fears led to increased interest rates? I'm guessing the nominal wealth declines affected the wealthiest most of all. I haven't seen measurements of that, yet, but I have seen some headlines about Musk and Adani.