|
|
Post by Da Man on Feb 7, 2020 15:43:31 GMT
Pensions were clearly a remnant of less efficent and more prosperous times. How can times that are "less efficient" also be "more prosperous"? Uh-oh, dirtybird. NOW you've done it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Feb 7, 2020 15:50:18 GMT
Pensions were clearly a remnant of less efficent and more prosperous times. How can times that are "less efficient" also be "more prosperous"? As the undergrad realizing his error slinks deeper into his seat |
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Feb 7, 2020 16:13:12 GMT
At least he didn't get scolded by the dreaded "Hmmmmmmmmm . . . "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 16:14:07 GMT
That isn't wrong at all. Less efficient (for industry) times were far more prosperous (for employees).
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 7, 2020 17:26:51 GMT
That isn't wrong at all. Less efficient (for industry) times were far more prosperous (for employees). You're overlooking that whole consuming thing that employees do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 17:29:36 GMT
That isn't wrong at all. Less efficient (for industry) times were far more prosperous (for employees). You're overlooking that whole consuming thing that employees do. No I'm not. The share of revenue that goes to employees (particularly run-of-the-mill employees) is much smaller than it was 40-50 years ago. There's more going to shareholders and stockpiles of cash reserves, which benefit very few. |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Feb 7, 2020 17:40:53 GMT
You're overlooking that whole consuming thing that employees do. No I'm not. The share of revenue that goes to employees (particularly run-of-the-mill employees) is much smaller than it was 40-50 years ago. There's more going to shareholders and stockpiles of cash reserves, which benefit very few. Even if true, how is share of revenue a good measure for prosperity of employees? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 17:51:57 GMT
It's one data point, as are wages (fairly stagnant in the middle class) and especially retirement benefits (now nonexistent) that were dirtybird's initial point. Here's a somewhat related study on the topic, from Yale professors. It's obviously drawing some blowback from the VC gods, but it illustrates the issue. Venture capital helped fuel Silicon Valley. Is it also destroying it?Venture capital money crowded out other traditional industries, beating them in the competition for land, talent, and capital, Sorenson found. At the same time, while incomes for already high earners rose — doctors and bankers were more in demand — they stayed flat or even fell for everyone else. Restaurant workers, bartenders, and hairdressers saw little benefit.
. . .
More surprising perhaps was that venture money didn’t really expand employment in technology companies, he said. Take, for example, scooter companies. Instead of a dozen competing businesses, venture capital investors choose one or two winners to back. As competitors shut down, the winners wind up employing fewer workers overall than there would’ve been in a more competitive market. |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Feb 7, 2020 18:20:35 GMT
It's one data point, as are wages (fairly stagnant in the middle class) and especially retirement benefits (now nonexistent) that were dirtybird's initial point. Here's a somewhat related study on the topic, from Yale professors. It's obviously drawing some blowback from the VC gods, but it illustrates the issue. Venture capital helped fuel Silicon Valley. Is it also destroying it?Venture capital money crowded out other traditional industries, beating them in the competition for land, talent, and capital, Sorenson found. At the same time, while incomes for already high earners rose — doctors and bankers were more in demand — they stayed flat or even fell for everyone else. Restaurant workers, bartenders, and hairdressers saw little benefit.
. . .
More surprising perhaps was that venture money didn’t really expand employment in technology companies, he said. Take, for example, scooter companies. Instead of a dozen competing businesses, venture capital investors choose one or two winners to back. As competitors shut down, the winners wind up employing fewer workers overall than there would’ve been in a more competitive market.Far from obvious—to me at least—that middle class wages are “stagnant.” Think it is very dependent on what time period you look at and what measure of inflation you use. (And also what segment of population you’re looking at—women, of course, are doing much better than decades ago, and decline in marriage rates may make household-level data look misleading.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 18:27:30 GMT
Here is the Pew Research Center in August 2018. For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decadesSo, to get back to the point of this: 1) Do you believe the economy has become "more efficient," i.e., fewer workers/salary expenditures needed to do the same job? 2) Do you believe workers have prospered more under this system? That's what dirtybird was getting at. It's the whole middle-class squeeze thing. Seems fairly non-controversial. I think what the good doctor was getting at is that more efficiency is better for everyone, philosophically speaking. But I don't think that's the case in our practice of capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Feb 7, 2020 18:59:07 GMT
Here is the Pew Research Center in August 2018. For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decadesSo, to get back to the point of this: 1) Do you believe the economy has become "more efficient," i.e., fewer workers/salary expenditures needed to do the same job? 2) Do you believe workers have prospered more under this system? That's what dirtybird was getting at. It's the whole middle-class squeeze thing. Seems fairly non-controversial. I think what the good doctor was getting at is that more efficiency is better for everyone, philosophically speaking. But I don't think that's the case in our practice of capitalism. This Brookings piece is a little more nuanced and gets at some of the issues I was hinting at: www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/09/10/are-wages-rising-falling-or-stagnating/Certainly the economy has become more productive over time. Not sure how to measure whether that’s more “prosperous” for employees—it depends, is likely the answer. I’d contend that the some of the largest factors contributing to the “middle-class squeeze”—health care, education, and housing costs—have very little to do with the practice of capitalism, and indeed are arguably in part attributable to the absence of it. (Government loans distort market for education, zoning and other regulations limit residential building growth, tying K-12 education to where people live distorts housing market, etc.) In most other areas we are significantly better off as consumers—cheaper, better quality, safer, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 19:02:44 GMT
I think it's dependent on where a person is in the quintiles of income.
And again, to his original point here -- unquestionably retirement is not as prosperous for most Americans with the pension system all but gone. That's why people who do have defined-benefit plans will stay in those jobs for as long as it takes to get that windfall.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 7, 2020 19:06:26 GMT
Here is the Pew Research Center in August 2018. For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decadesSo, to get back to the point of this: 1) Do you believe the economy has become "more efficient," i.e., fewer workers/salary expenditures needed to do the same job? 2) Do you believe workers have prospered more under this system? That's what dirtybird was getting at. It's the whole middle-class squeeze thing. Seems fairly non-controversial. I think what the good doctor was getting at is that more efficiency is better for everyone, philosophically speaking. But I don't think that's the case in our practice of capitalism. First of all, that link from Pew notes it doesn't consider non-wage compensation (i.e., benefits, which it pegs at roughly 30% of total compensation). Secondly, even if you ignored that, the author treats an 11%-ish gain as "barely budged." Thirdly, the author of that link defines "purchasing power" as the inflation-adjusted bottom line, ignoring the fact that a dollar today (controlling for inflation) buys a helluva lot more value than a dollar yesterday. And that brings me to your second question ... your definition of "prosper" focuses on that proportion of business expense comprising wages/compensation. A proper definition for "prosper" focuses on consumption, not the divvying up of the costs of production. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 19:10:13 GMT
Now bring it back to retirement. Do you think Americans are better off in retirement than they were under the pension system?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 7, 2020 19:12:34 GMT
Now bring it back to retirement. Do you think Americans are better off in retirement than they were under the pension system? Which Americans? What pension system? When? |
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-919624-1312618814.jpeg.jpg)
