What produces great economic inequality?

[DBT]

People, first and foremost, tend to look after themselves and their own no matter their position in society. Who is better able to do that than those most able to influence policy makers or set policy, the high end of town, big business and their lobbyists. Human nature 101.

Oh god! Please not another thread on how and why minimum wage doesn't keep up with growth in equities. If I could, let's just summarize and move on: low skill labor wages rises slower than higher skilled labor; and both labor wages grows far less than equities. We don't need 10,000 graphs trying to show why do we?

As much as it would suit some, it is not that simple. In terms of wealth and income there it is probably more a matter of power and position at work than market forces. Nothing much has changed in thousands of years of human history or behaviour, it's only a matter of form, robber barons one century, executives and board of directors the next....

 

[Harry Bosch]

People, first and foremost, tend to look after themselves and their own no matter their position in society. Who is better able to do that than those most able to influence policy makers or set policy, the high end of town, big business and their lobbyists. Human nature 101.

Oh god! Please not another thread on how and why minimum wage doesn't keep up with growth in equities. If I could, let's just summarize and move on: low skill labor wages rises slower than higher skilled labor; and both labor wages grows far less than equities. We don't need 10,000 graphs trying to show why do we?

As much as it would suit some, it is not that simple. In terms of wealth and income there it is probably more a matter of power and position at work than market forces. Nothing much has changed in thousands of years of human history or behaviour, it's only a matter of form, robber barons one century, executives and board of directors the next....

It is that simple. If growth in equity were required to match growth in wages, companies would die and noone would create a new company. No one would invest anymore. There would be no incentive.

 

[DBT]

As much as it would suit some, it is not that simple. In terms of wealth and income there it is probably more a matter of power and position at work than market forces. Nothing much has changed in thousands of years of human history or behaviour, it's only a matter of form, robber barons one century, executives and board of directors the next....

It is that simple. If growth in equity were required to match growth in wages, companies would die and noone would create a new company. No one would invest anymore. There would be no incentive.

As we know, there are companies that struggle to keep afloat and there are companies that make an absolute killing, one size does not fit all Consequentially it's not a simple issue for society, business or workers. Are we as a society to lower worker incomes to the lowest common denominator, to rates that only struggling firms can afford, sweet fuck all?

 

[Swammerdami]

As much as it would suit some, it is not that simple. In terms of wealth and income there it is probably more a matter of power and position at work than market forces. Nothing much has changed in thousands of years of human history or behaviour, it's only a matter of form, robber barons one century, executives and board of directors the next....

It is that simple. If growth in equity were required to match growth in wages, companies would die and noone would create a new company. No one would invest anymore. There would be no incentive.

As we know, there are companies that struggle to keep afloat and there are companies that make an absolute killing, one size does not fit all Consequentially it's not a simple issue for society, business or workers. Are we as a society to lower worker incomes to the lowest common denominator, to rates that only struggling firms can afford, sweet fuck all?

Assuming zero population growth, constant GINI, and unchanging labor demographics (e.g. split between skilled and unskilled), would not we expect the "sharing of the pie" between labor and capital to be constant? The idea that the game is perpetually stacked against labor is not mathematically practicable in the long run. For example, once wages are reduced to "starvation level" they cannot be reduced further.

Although GINI has been rising in most of the developed world since the Great Depression (except for the upward blip in the U.S. 1940-1941 presumably WWII-related — thanks for pointing this out, bilby!) today's GINI is not high when compared with 19th century or earlier.

But my point here is as over-simplified as the point it seeks to rebut; for starters, growth is NOT zero, and demographics DO change. And as DBT points out, the capitalist sector is not homogeneous. My message here is just to look beyond the rich-vs-poor morality play.

But now many economists, social scientists and legislators finally realize that high levels of income and wealth inequality — whatever caused them and whatever long-term trends be — are a big present-day problem in the U.S. (and elsewhere). Let's hope a Congress led by Schumer and Pelosi makes progress. (I won't hold my breath. :-( )

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As much as it would suit some, it is not that simple. In terms of wealth and income there it is probably more a matter of power and position at work than market forces. Nothing much has changed in thousands of years of human history or behaviour, it's only a matter of form, robber barons one century, executives and board of directors the next....

It is that simple. If growth in equity were required to match growth in wages, companies would die and noone would create a new company. No one would invest anymore. There would be no incentive.

As we know, there are companies that struggle to keep afloat and there are companies that make an absolute killing, one size does not fit all Consequentially it's not a simple issue for society, business or workers. Are we as a society to lower worker incomes to the lowest common denominator, to rates that only struggling firms can afford, sweet fuck all?

Which is better, working for a struggling firm or not working at all?

If there were enough good jobs the struggling ones wouldn't find employees at all, don't pretend getting rid of the bad jobs would make good jobs appear.

 

[bilby]

As we know, there are companies that struggle to keep afloat and there are companies that make an absolute killing, one size does not fit all Consequentially it's not a simple issue for society, business or workers. Are we as a society to lower worker incomes to the lowest common denominator, to rates that only struggling firms can afford, sweet fuck all?

Which is better, working for a struggling firm or not working at all?

If there were enough good jobs the struggling ones wouldn't find employees at all, don't pretend getting rid of the bad jobs would make good jobs appear.

You just assumed exactly that.

If there were enough good jobs, the struggling ones wouldn't find employees at all, which wouldn't matter, because there would be enough good jobs.

 

[DBT]

As we know, there are companies that struggle to keep afloat and there are companies that make an absolute killing, one size does not fit all Consequentially it's not a simple issue for society, business or workers. Are we as a society to lower worker incomes to the lowest common denominator, to rates that only struggling firms can afford, sweet fuck all?

Which is better, working for a struggling firm or not working at all?

If there were enough good jobs the struggling ones wouldn't find employees at all, don't pretend getting rid of the bad jobs would make good jobs appear.

Where did I say anything about getting rid of 'bad jobs?'

What is a firm to do when it is struggling and can't meet its running costs?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As we know, there are companies that struggle to keep afloat and there are companies that make an absolute killing, one size does not fit all Consequentially it's not a simple issue for society, business or workers. Are we as a society to lower worker incomes to the lowest common denominator, to rates that only struggling firms can afford, sweet fuck all?

Which is better, working for a struggling firm or not working at all?

If there were enough good jobs the struggling ones wouldn't find employees at all, don't pretend getting rid of the bad jobs would make good jobs appear.

You just assumed exactly that.

If there were enough good jobs, the struggling ones wouldn't find employees at all, which wouldn't matter, because there would be enough good jobs.

I was arguing a hypothetical, not assuming it to be true.