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

The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#61

Post by jbester »

acslater00 wrote: post #22

Couple things here. First, corporate profits are aberrantly high for a number of reasons, none of which are likely to be permanent. John Hussman, an analyst whom I respect deeply, has a good discussion of this from the perspective of stock valuations, but the basic point is relevant here. [ http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc130408.htm ] Second, while I agree that this is "the story" in a purely journalistic sense, i…

Historically, spikes in income inequality have been a harbinger of a recession - the theory is it can indicate misapplication of capital. In that investment income is outpacing growth in the underlying economy (using worker's income as a proxy). Not sure how true it is in the era of multi-national conglomerates and outsourcing.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#62

Post by Avshalom »

ctdonath wrote: post #58
Avshalom wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Waltons' fortunes are built by our labor, unless you think they could staff ~9000 locations by themselves.

Non-sequitur. The Walton's fortunes are built by trading for our labor, benefitting both. This does not obligate the Waltons to pay "living wages" where the value of one's labor does not rise to the cost of one's living expenses.

The point is that we are not asking Walmart to "supply" us with a living wage from somebody's personal bank account or that somebody else work harder so we can get paid more. The workers are already creating a value for the company significantly larger than what they see every two weeks. We are asking that Walmart/Employer-X give us a larger portion of our labor back.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#63

Post by Avshalom »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #60
readme wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For me, once I understood the (technological, economic) reasons for the difference it became less of a moral issue and more of a practical issue. keywords: "For me" Everyone seems to lose their empathy for the poor and unfortunate once they become successful themselves. But I bet before you landed your sweet coffeescript gig, that you were pretty empathetic. It's not a practical issue. It's purely a moral one. We a…

The system rewards luck and pedigree more than it rewards effort and hard work. What evidence do you have for this?

Ah so you believe in the labor theory of value.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#64

Post by quinnchr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #60
readme wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For me, once I understood the (technological, economic) reasons for the difference it became less of a moral issue and more of a practical issue. keywords: "For me" Everyone seems to lose their empathy for the poor and unfortunate once they become successful themselves. But I bet before you landed your sweet coffeescript gig, that you were pretty empathetic. It's not a practical issue. It's purely a moral one. We a…

The system rewards luck and pedigree more than it rewards effort and hard work. What evidence do you have for this?

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0691.pdf

What's your explanation for the income distribution among different races? White people are just harder working? What evidence do you have that effort and hard work are rewarded more than luck and pedigree?

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#66

Post by boomlinde »

ctdonath wrote: post #48
boomlinde wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you argue that the fact that people who CHOOSE to hand over their money live in a society in which they are taught to do so by more and more intrusive means, and of which the entire value system is constantly being manipulated by means only available to the "handee" doesn't factor in at all?

Of course I'd argue the "fact". It isn't one. Are there centralized influences, operating toward their own interests? Of course. Always have been. Those pursuing an effective strategy of sales & social normalization of X do so because it pays off. In a world of increasingly homogeneous media domination, putting up significant sums to buy influence pays off - hence the increasing concentration of wealth, supplying wha…

You disagree with my supposed fact and then go on to support it in the following paragraph. I never said anything about it being infinite or total in scope.

As for the ultimate power of an individual to choose freely, I totally agree, but I won't pretend for a second that society doesn't always influence my choices in one way or another. That would be arrogant and short-sighted, especially since, no, most people don't get to choose their teachers and influences until they're 18.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#67

Post by jbooth »

twoodfin wrote: post #54
jbooth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest problem of incentives can be summed up as: It's much more profitable to do a mediocre job in banking than to do a world-changing job of actually building things. Proximity to money is worth more than actual ingenuity.

Then why doesn't every income-motivated mediocre person try to get a job in banking? The banks would have their pick of candidates, and they'd save on employment costs.

Have you ever met people who work on Wall St? :)

I'm not saying they're not smart, I'm saying that the proximity to money has a lot more to do with their earnings than the value they're creating for the economy.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#68

Post by ctdonath »

Avshalom wrote: post #62
ctdonath wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-sequitur. The Walton's fortunes are built by trading for our labor, benefitting both. This does not obligate the Waltons to pay "living wages" where the value of one's labor does not rise to the cost of one's living expenses.

The point is that we are not asking Walmart to "supply" us with a living wage from somebody's personal bank account or that somebody else work harder so we can get paid more. The workers are already creating a value for the company significantly larger than what they see every two weeks. We are asking that Walmart/Employer-X give us a larger portion of our labor back.

So ask for a raise.

A thing is worth only what another is willing to pay for it. If others are willing to do the same work for the objected-to price, you're asking too much.

Of course the company gets more value out of the work than the employee. If it were just break-even, the question would be "why bother?" and either just not have the work done, or find a radically different way to get it done (say, hiring Roomba if the cost of human floor-sweepers gets too high). The great thing about employment is BOTH get more out than they put in - yes, that includes the employee working there instead of elsewhere for lower pay, or not being paid for not working anywhere.

Sucks, yes, at times. Most of human history involved a lot of effort to eek out a meager existence. If you want more, you gotta do more that others are willing to pay more for.

Oh, and yes - you ARE asking for a "living wage from somebody's personal bank account". The Waltons are people too.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#69

Post by bicknergseng »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #57
jbooth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest problem of incentives can be summed up as: It's much more profitable to do a mediocre job in banking than to do a world-changing job of actually building things. Proximity to money is worth more than actual ingenuity.

"Proximity to money" Imagine a city on the confluence of two rivers, with a series of locks making it a major trade center. The leaders of the lock operators union come to the city fathers requesting they be paid a percentage of the trade passing through the locks rather than a regular wage. The city leaders ask why, since they didn't build the locks or create any of the system that makes it all happen, they should s…

You also described the situation in Sudan/South Sudan. But without the genocide.

Re: The Stock Market vs. the Labor Market

#70

Post by Avshalom »

ctdonath wrote: post #68
Avshalom wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that we are not asking Walmart to "supply" us with a living wage from somebody's personal bank account or that somebody else work harder so we can get paid more. The workers are already creating a value for the company significantly larger than what they see every two weeks. We are asking that Walmart/Employer-X give us a larger portion of our labor back.

So ask for a raise. A thing is worth only what another is willing to pay for it. If others are willing to do the same work for the objected-to price, you're asking too much. Of course the company gets more value out of the work than the employee. If it were just break-even, the question would be "why bother?" and either just not have the work done, or find a radically different way to get it done (say, hiring Roomba…

I rather feel like campaigning for a living was IS asking for a raise.

although the comment that I was responding to (yours): "How moral is it to not earn a living wage, but expect others to supply it anyway?"

presents asking for--or rather receiving-- a raise as immoral.

I was pointing out that people are already earning a living, they are just not being paid it.

Post reply on HN