Liberal economics or conservative economics, the bottom line remains the same, there is no free lunch. Unfortunately its the honest hardworking people of America who have to fit the bill for liberal frivolity. Thank you.
5
The Clinton agenda won't ever happen. I doubt she'd ever be President.
1
This approach does not adeqetely account for foreign competition. Capital flows to where it can achieve the highest return. It's globalization of labor, not consolidation of businesses, that has caused US wages to stagnate.
14
Could the government pass laws that would tie management's and workers salaries and benefits together so everyone gets a fair deal ? We now have the fox guarding the hen house. The workers bee's in our society are exploited more and more- jobs once done by three or more are now forced upon one desperate soul who is fearful of complaining less they be replaced. The shareholders and the other guys at the top are crying all the way to the bank.
7
As my economics teacher once said about theories of "The Dismal Science" (economics), "Ask a housewife about her marginal utility for peanut butter and you're likely to get the kind of answer you deserve."
If this is a preview of what a "wonky" Presidency might look like, it would appear that we're in for hard times. Can't wait for the first POTUS press conference where this is presented.... And for the SNL episode that would follow!
If this is a preview of what a "wonky" Presidency might look like, it would appear that we're in for hard times. Can't wait for the first POTUS press conference where this is presented.... And for the SNL episode that would follow!
2
Language matters. It isn't "redistribution of wealth". It's "restoration of wealth". Period.
8
Pre-distribution Policy #1: Stop redistributing American jobs overseas through bad trade deals, inversions, etc.
16
I believe this movement's thesis is well documented in Robert Reich's excellent book from last year _Saving Capitalism_. Readers interested in getting a deeper understanding would be well-served by reading that, perhaps.
https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Many-Not-Few/dp/0345806220
https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Many-Not-Few/dp/0345806220
2
Republicans opposing tax increases on the rich? what about the tax deal that Obama had with the Republicans that increased the top rate back to Clinton rates and reinstated phase outs of deductions and exemptions? or is that not part of your narrative?
Any help for the non-super rich from a Republican House of Representatives? Give me break! At least with the Roman Empire there were BOTH "Bread and Circuses". With the current Republican House and Senate, all efforts seem to concentrated on taking away what little "bread" there is from the safety net help there is, and, instead, give much more Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdey "cicuses" yet more Hillary kangaroo "investigations"!
6
Unions and co ops are examples of countervaling force. As long as the business leaders have free reign without countervaling force, they will take more and more. This is the natural end point of a free system; the winners consolidate their power until they own everything or until they are removed by violent revolution. Unless we plan for a different outcome, this is what we will get.
To retain freedom in any meaningful sense, we must ensure that ownership and control of necessities is distributed, and is free from collusion and monopoly.
Monospony might be a good start, but they'll have to find a better word or slogan for it. Most people will vote for "make America great" before they vote for monopsony.
To retain freedom in any meaningful sense, we must ensure that ownership and control of necessities is distributed, and is free from collusion and monopoly.
Monospony might be a good start, but they'll have to find a better word or slogan for it. Most people will vote for "make America great" before they vote for monopsony.
4
In the first place "monopsony" is a political non-starter because it is too hard to say. Only those who have the time to learn how to pronounce it and then practice enough to go out in public and say it will be using it. A great idea with a non-starter name. The concept "pre-distribution" in opposition to redistribution is easily understood and easy to say. The problem is an economy in which the government distributes wealth. The government should ensure that the playing field is level, as does the judicial system.
A more interesting approach is worker cooperatives that can prevent distributing income unequally in the first place. This could work much better than rules about top wages, which will just be avoided like they are in college football.
http://www.sociocracy.info/wealth-distribution/
A more interesting approach is worker cooperatives that can prevent distributing income unequally in the first place. This could work much better than rules about top wages, which will just be avoided like they are in college football.
http://www.sociocracy.info/wealth-distribution/
1
Economic Inequality today is mainly the result of decades of tax cuts for the wealthy, assault on Labor by governments and corporations, heavy debt on the labor class so that a large share of their wages goes toward paying the debt. Only a small reversal of these policies appears plausible in near future given the prevailing political environment. So the present, and possibly the next Pres Clinton, are constrained to work on the periphery, and not the core, of the Inequality problem, by way of trying a minimum wage hike, overtime rules enforcement and similar administrative measures. These are too small yet the only feasible way to make any dent in the problem. Recall that fighting the Unions was a priority of Pres Reagan and he started this by using executive powers - fired tens of thousands of airline workers in the early 80's. To use the same powers in reverse, and to strengthen the Labor, the administration needs a strong pro-Union Labor Relations Board where most Labor-Industrial disputes are arbitrated. The Govt should encourage employee participation in management via Stock Ownership Plans which value a company independently of the stock markets. Focused enforcement of many other administrative measures is the only way to strengthen labor's side of bargain these days. No new laws appear likely toward redistribution. Medicare-for-All will not happen but a Public Option in ACA will contain costs. Social Security is losing value due to insignificant COLA adjustments.
8
Concentration in the economy also acts to protect legacy interests. Greater political clout makes for regulations that protect the status quo and raise barriers to entry. Concentration slows innovation, depresses growth and acts to reduce opportunities for SME's and workers.
2
I just watched the Bill Maher interview with the President. It was a great interview with some insights into government and the the President's thoughts. A point on socialism was made and since I am from Canada, it was very enlightening. Americans have a strong sense of individualism and self, this translate to policy. Thus with capitalism these two schools of thought are quite synergistic and complement each other for a mindset of one's self worth based on how much money you make and better one's self over all else. Of course the majority of Americans have a sense of community but libertarians and republicans have a strong mindset based on these principles.
It's quite amusing when people complain that these academics are preaching to the choir and these finding are plain to see. This is a problem where then people accept the status quo and say well it's so obvious so lets keep electing politicians that keep denigrating socialism and electing a GOP controlled House and Senate and not to mention supporting Donald Trump.
It's quite amusing when people complain that these academics are preaching to the choir and these finding are plain to see. This is a problem where then people accept the status quo and say well it's so obvious so lets keep electing politicians that keep denigrating socialism and electing a GOP controlled House and Senate and not to mention supporting Donald Trump.
6
While I have no doubt that redistribution of wealth is part of the answer to our problems, we seem to be overlooking the fact that our economy is improving right now. Unemployment is half what it was 8 years ago and wages are finally going up. The wealthy definitely don't need tax cuts, especially since most new jobs are created by small businesses, usually started by middle class owners. Corporations need incentives to repatriate foreign profits. There are temporary tax incentives that would work for this rather than huge cuts for corporations that already don't pay their fair share. As an investor, this is not in my own interest, but I think we need that money here, working to rebuild infrastructure and putting even more people to work in better jobs.
6
This problem goes much deeper that the minimum wage. The long run impacts will be severe.
The monopsony power of employers has made many unwilling to pursue jobs requiring large expenditures for training. Airlines, for example complain they cannot find pilots. Yet the airlines have used their monopsony power to depress wages to the point that a starting pilot receives $25,000 a year. Is it any surprise that neither the military nor commercial airlines can find individuals willing to invest years of time and perhaps more than $100,000 to earn peanuts.
We will be paying for the abuse of monopsony power for decades.
See “America’s Wage Problem” in the International Economy. http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_F14_Verleger.pdf
The monopsony power of employers has made many unwilling to pursue jobs requiring large expenditures for training. Airlines, for example complain they cannot find pilots. Yet the airlines have used their monopsony power to depress wages to the point that a starting pilot receives $25,000 a year. Is it any surprise that neither the military nor commercial airlines can find individuals willing to invest years of time and perhaps more than $100,000 to earn peanuts.
We will be paying for the abuse of monopsony power for decades.
See “America’s Wage Problem” in the International Economy. http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_F14_Verleger.pdf
9
For many industries, labor unions are simply not the answer. They tend to raise the pay of low-performing workers and depress the pay of high-performing workers. Longevity is not the best metric for how much someone should get paid.
Hopefully we don't see more of the endless cycle of shuffling money to labor unions that in turn return some of these funds back to politicians.
The idea of rewarding companies for profit-sharing with their employees could potentially garner widespread support among all parties and should be the focus.
Hopefully we don't see more of the endless cycle of shuffling money to labor unions that in turn return some of these funds back to politicians.
The idea of rewarding companies for profit-sharing with their employees could potentially garner widespread support among all parties and should be the focus.
3
unions are part of the answer. Corporations such as IBM have waged war against any attemps to unionize. They simply fire the organizers. There is no equality in the work place without strict government protection of the workers who attempt to organize. Try getting an education and working hard also.
2
A neat and innovative way to rearrange deck chairs on Titanic.
11
Could you please explain in some detail how you intend to save the Titanic, rather than just criticizing other peoples' ideas?
1
So a supply-sider at AEI--the same bucket shop that gave us all the lies, fraud, and deceit about Iraq--thinks monopsony is not a problem. That means he thinks stagnant wages are not a problem.
But that's what he's paid to say.
But that's what he's paid to say.
6
How can one get through an article like this, and never see a discussion about anti-trust law?
15
Goodness. It looks like common sense is beginning to seep into economic policy discussions. This has to be shut down. It could undermine the whole system.
3
The unions are in the wrong places. As a ground-level employee for one of the world's largest retailers (and not Walmart), I would love to be represented by our local teacher's union. And it's not even about excessive wages. Simple things like sick days and predictable schedules would make a big difference for employees stuck here because they didn't have a good experience in... school.
6
I believe work provides people with a sense of dignity and purpose, so a "pre distribution" approach makes sense. As always with economics, however, it is a complicated topic. The article pretends that the size of the pie remains the same regardless of how we slice it up. How do we remain competitive in the world economy and draw more investment capital while still maintaining a reasonable standard of living for our workers? And will government policy makers have the deft touch to do this correctly? Ultimately, market forces remain and capital seeks the best risk/reward ratio.
1
With the invisible hand and the American dream? Rubbish!
The magnitude of the problems we currently face require us to pull all levers, i.e. predistribution as well as redistribution. Inequality of wealth, income and opportunity has gone way too far.
9
One important factor is also the power of money. We should pay more attention to the public domain and resist attempts by private capital to encroach on it. Also the power of shareholders of companies should become less absolute so that more attention can be paid to other interests.
2
I hope they didn't spend too much time on this concept which represents a blinding flash of the obvious.
But what does work is making policy that helps the economy grow. To the White House this is an idea that never crosses their mind. And why is this. None have even lived in the real world or run a business.
Let's take for example the simple issue with Inversions. You want to fix this, lower the corporate tax rate. But what is their response, more regulation that only makes it harder to do business.
The economy is growing at a marginal rate. And it has done this under a regulator burden that is unprecedented. You want to fix the inequity problem, let the private sec tor do what it has always done on it own - create jobs.
Obama and his team or clueless about how do to tis and this is way we are growing at only about 1.5%.
This country deserves better than what we have and what we are going to have.
Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax. And the bottom 20%? They get paid by Uncle Sam. We compare tax burdens as Tax Day approaches.
So who isn't paying their fair share. Look, I get it that lower income people can't afford to pay much in taxes. And I am fine with that. But what I am not fine with is the lack of attack on our spending problem. Obama has added almost $10 trillion to the national debt. Interest on the debt is going to increase from $236 to about $750 billion when interest rates normalize. What do we do then.
But what does work is making policy that helps the economy grow. To the White House this is an idea that never crosses their mind. And why is this. None have even lived in the real world or run a business.
Let's take for example the simple issue with Inversions. You want to fix this, lower the corporate tax rate. But what is their response, more regulation that only makes it harder to do business.
The economy is growing at a marginal rate. And it has done this under a regulator burden that is unprecedented. You want to fix the inequity problem, let the private sec tor do what it has always done on it own - create jobs.
Obama and his team or clueless about how do to tis and this is way we are growing at only about 1.5%.
This country deserves better than what we have and what we are going to have.
Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax. And the bottom 20%? They get paid by Uncle Sam. We compare tax burdens as Tax Day approaches.
So who isn't paying their fair share. Look, I get it that lower income people can't afford to pay much in taxes. And I am fine with that. But what I am not fine with is the lack of attack on our spending problem. Obama has added almost $10 trillion to the national debt. Interest on the debt is going to increase from $236 to about $750 billion when interest rates normalize. What do we do then.
3
I applaud your confidence in your theory. And while it has some merit, it is a tired and failed policy preferred by republicans who seem to believe if it doesn't work the first time, do it again and again...... So I ask you to consider something different. Trying to use the same tool for all situations doesn't make sense. While I agree that predistribution is an unknown, we must try it. And by the way, your theory doesn't seem to be working in Kansas?
1
The progressive tax rates and estate tax of the 50s and 60s performed this function in American society. They created incentives for corporations to place profits away from where they would be taxed.
The last thing you want is for the government to collect earnings and then hand them back through some arbitrary set of programs. Rather, use tax incentives and disincentives to align the interests of fairer distribution with the interests of maximizing after-tax profit. Monetary benefit for "doing the right thing" might provide tax free intervals for start up companies. It also might raise taxes on annual incomes above $250K and estate transfers valued above $5M, while providing tax credit for additional hiring, employee training, and R and D. It certainly would reduce the corporate tax rate while closing as many loopholes as possible.
Americans equate capitalism with entrepreneurs, but the end game of laissez-faire capitalism is monopolies and the death of entrepreneurial opportunity. We need a "middle way" that encourages individual initiative; which both oppressive over-regulation and corporate oligarchy stifle.
The last thing you want is for the government to collect earnings and then hand them back through some arbitrary set of programs. Rather, use tax incentives and disincentives to align the interests of fairer distribution with the interests of maximizing after-tax profit. Monetary benefit for "doing the right thing" might provide tax free intervals for start up companies. It also might raise taxes on annual incomes above $250K and estate transfers valued above $5M, while providing tax credit for additional hiring, employee training, and R and D. It certainly would reduce the corporate tax rate while closing as many loopholes as possible.
Americans equate capitalism with entrepreneurs, but the end game of laissez-faire capitalism is monopolies and the death of entrepreneurial opportunity. We need a "middle way" that encourages individual initiative; which both oppressive over-regulation and corporate oligarchy stifle.
6
One of the reasons we have such great wealth income inequality in the U.S. is that the ultra-rich (and the mega-corporations) have been able to take advantage of numerous loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, for decades now. These loopholes persist, because big money buys political influence. Reforming the tax code is the only real way to address the problem. By the way, you can call this "income redistribution" if you like, but to me it is simply leveling the playing field so that everyone pays their fair share. Tax avoidance has gone on for so long now by mega-corporations that their CEOs use it as a routine tool to increase profits, and think nothing of it. Witness the recent comments on parking profits off-shore to avoid U.S. taxes by Tim Cook as evidence of this.
26
You are seriously making this argument when Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay settled a lawsuit brought against them for colluding by agreeing amongst themselve to keep salaries low via not hiring each other's employee. The suit covered some 65,000 employees who worked for the companies between 2005 and 2010. They settled last year agreeing to pay $410 million between them. Cheap for them. These are some of the biggest technology companies in the world operating all over the world. This is a classic case of labor market monopsony. These companies conspired to avoid competition and it has been very harmful to the affected employees. Having to sue your employer is no easy task to even contemplate. Suing powerful companies like these is especially difficult. Focus on higher minimum wages and tougher antitrust enforcement are needed as a first-order set of priorities due to the power of companies like these have to buy their way to reduce costs including wages. Companies like Walmart used low wages, poor benefits, and unhappy workers to become the world's number 1 retailer. Now they are facing competition from the likes of Amazon and are seeing sales decline. Walmart has recently been improving wages and benefits but would not have if could have avoided it. Where is the willingness to supporting raising taxes? One of our two major political parties are unabashed supporters of reducing taxes on the wealthy and is obstructionist to boot.
13
Just think of how a fair payout (say, $100,000 per worker, or $6.5 billion total) would juice the US economy.
And given the compensation in Silicon Valley, $100,000 is probably unrealistically low. One million dollars for each employee, or $65 billion in total, would be realistic. And those companies have far more than that in cash stashed offshore. Just think how much that would juice our economy!
And given the compensation in Silicon Valley, $100,000 is probably unrealistically low. One million dollars for each employee, or $65 billion in total, would be realistic. And those companies have far more than that in cash stashed offshore. Just think how much that would juice our economy!
3
Too complicated, too slow, too vulnerable to gamesmanship and based on some questionable hypotheses (strong labor unions do not improve productivity). Ultimately redistribution via tax funded increases in the social wage is the only practical route to reducing inequality.
3
Maybe unions don't produce more productivity. Sounds more like simply a union hating attitude with no foundation in fact. But anyway, unions do provide legal protection from illegal firing and at least the negotiating power to work for higher wages instead of just providing jobs that don't pay even a living wage.
The Republican's mantra that to create and protect business interests and profits at all costs without any economic benefits to employees is why unions were created.
One can be a critic of union power and still see that sometimes unions are needed to increase wages and benefits to reduce the economic inequality in America's workplace.
The Republican's mantra that to create and protect business interests and profits at all costs without any economic benefits to employees is why unions were created.
One can be a critic of union power and still see that sometimes unions are needed to increase wages and benefits to reduce the economic inequality in America's workplace.
8
@Gary Behun
Marion, Ohio
It's entirely a statement of fact. The principal sources of productivity improvement are technological change and economies of scale. Consider the shipping container! Unions are not noted for furthering the adoption of either. Nothing to do with hating unions. In fact they do have a role in levelling the playing field although like all those that have monopoly power they tend to end up abusing it. Consider police unions! Sounds like you just won't to accept facts. The problem with people like you is that the moment anyone states a fact that's contrary to their overall belief system they immediately start making all sorts of rather muddled assertions about reality. Whether you like it or not the assumption that unions improve productivity is a fairly daft hypothesis. They may bring certain benefits to employees but improving productivity ain't one of them.
Marion, Ohio
It's entirely a statement of fact. The principal sources of productivity improvement are technological change and economies of scale. Consider the shipping container! Unions are not noted for furthering the adoption of either. Nothing to do with hating unions. In fact they do have a role in levelling the playing field although like all those that have monopoly power they tend to end up abusing it. Consider police unions! Sounds like you just won't to accept facts. The problem with people like you is that the moment anyone states a fact that's contrary to their overall belief system they immediately start making all sorts of rather muddled assertions about reality. Whether you like it or not the assumption that unions improve productivity is a fairly daft hypothesis. They may bring certain benefits to employees but improving productivity ain't one of them.
1
Only when the robots get unionized, will we'll see how well the pro-union policies work out for the worker who lost their job to advanced manufacturing! Manufacturing is not coming back the way it was 50-years ago - we live in a globally-based service economy, and the longer it takes to accept that, the longer our economic disparities will exist.
3
When Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, humanity enjoyed 100% employment. That is, everyone worked hard just to survive. As societies evolved we were able to work less hard, even have members who didn't work at all, and we still survived. As the complexities of human society develop, we approach the day when with limitless technology and energy sources we all can have everything without much personal effort. I figure we are about three-quarters of the way along that path from 100% employment to 0%. The problem is, how do we decide who gets what, and how much of it do they get? It used to be with work. Then position started to matter. Inheritance and entitlements crept in with the development of classes and rulers. Technology, far from freeing us all from labor, has enriched the owners of the robots. Now we are so messed up that the richest 25 have more than the poorest 3 billion! And those 25 are certain that they "earned" it! Adam and Eve may have had it easy after all. God was clearly thinking long-term for the punishment.
4
In acknowledging what might be called the "Star Trek paradox", gh is basically correct. Wealth is created by labor (the Labor Theory of Value). * More of the wealth created by workers needs to remain in their pockets, rather than going to people who do little to create that wealth.
Before someone starts screaming "That's Communism!", no, it isn't. There's nothing wrong with private property, when that property is what the workers themselves have created. We want people to work hard because they know they'll keep a significant percentage of what they create. This is anti-capitalist, and one aspect of "economic morality".
* More precisely, wealth is created by the expenditure of energy to reduce entropy. If that doesn't make immediate sense, think of the difference in value between a Craftsman house hit, and the finished dwelling.
Before someone starts screaming "That's Communism!", no, it isn't. There's nothing wrong with private property, when that property is what the workers themselves have created. We want people to work hard because they know they'll keep a significant percentage of what they create. This is anti-capitalist, and one aspect of "economic morality".
* More precisely, wealth is created by the expenditure of energy to reduce entropy. If that doesn't make immediate sense, think of the difference in value between a Craftsman house hit, and the finished dwelling.
1
This is a topic that I was made aware of over a year ago. Once one starts to grasp that fewer and fewer of us will work for renumeration, one can see all this "bring the manufacturing jobs back" is akin to "more buggy whips!" Combine the fact that humans have less and less to do with the making of things with Artificial Intelligence around the corner, and we are in a world where almost no one works, as we presently think of it.
So how does one purchase the goods made by machines, not the buyer? Perhaps an annual guaranteed income. Since work is proven to give many people meaning and purpose in life, what now? Some of that answer might be found with looking at what retirees do with their lives. Volunteering is big with them (meaning me, too!). Time to spend on self-actualization, the arts, spiritual exploration, and how about this: time to be a fully involved parent.
Think of it as The Deindustrial Revolution.
So how does one purchase the goods made by machines, not the buyer? Perhaps an annual guaranteed income. Since work is proven to give many people meaning and purpose in life, what now? Some of that answer might be found with looking at what retirees do with their lives. Volunteering is big with them (meaning me, too!). Time to spend on self-actualization, the arts, spiritual exploration, and how about this: time to be a fully involved parent.
Think of it as The Deindustrial Revolution.
1
I like the premise of this article "pre-distribution." It obviates the entire tax and spend political argument that has been ongoing for 30+ years and supplants it with a philosophy, if not a mechanism, to address inequality. Brilliant.
So, how do we get there? Government mandated minimum wages? Mandated ESOPs where employees earn or are awarded meaningful quantities of stock by their employers? Additional governmental regulation (and re-regulation) of monopolies/oligopolies - e.g., the airline industry, Pharma, cableTV? All of the above?
Clearly, we don't know, but it feels like a new pathway forward.
So, how do we get there? Government mandated minimum wages? Mandated ESOPs where employees earn or are awarded meaningful quantities of stock by their employers? Additional governmental regulation (and re-regulation) of monopolies/oligopolies - e.g., the airline industry, Pharma, cableTV? All of the above?
Clearly, we don't know, but it feels like a new pathway forward.
1
A wonderfully informative article. Thank You. Predistribution policies probably would result in a more effective way to address income inequality than past liberal attempts that emphasized enabling practices that included dubious public service job programs. It's long term strategy that builds on an individuals abilities by spurring competition can be done in conjunction with infrastructure spending that actually create jobs in much needed areas.
Ah, the Poindexters are hard at work, trying to square the circle. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to in turn raise the salaries of people in skill positions. Unions are never going to make a major comeback -- and even if they did, would that necessarily be a good thing? The UAW was as damaging to the US auto industry as management.
Monopsony will have effects on the margins -- the new overtime rule is a good example of this. But if the goal is to reduce income inequality, the only workable method is through the tax code. Good luck with that.
It might also help if we reformed Wall Street by getting rid of the casino aspects that have grown up there since the 1980s. Good luck with that, too.
Monopsony will have effects on the margins -- the new overtime rule is a good example of this. But if the goal is to reduce income inequality, the only workable method is through the tax code. Good luck with that.
It might also help if we reformed Wall Street by getting rid of the casino aspects that have grown up there since the 1980s. Good luck with that, too.
What the article fails to mention is the option to empower citizens :
- It is no coincidence that fake education enterprises like the Trump University could flourish for many years. For individual citizens a lawsuit would cost much more than the "education". It is the government that should do something.
- Amazingly businesses often manage to squash local initiatives as "false competition".
- Many monopolies are based on "intellectual property rights" - often based on very flimsy claims. With weak research the Patent Office delegates the job of fighting weak patents to companies. Given the costs involved only the richest will take the trouble.
- It is no coincidence that fake education enterprises like the Trump University could flourish for many years. For individual citizens a lawsuit would cost much more than the "education". It is the government that should do something.
- Amazingly businesses often manage to squash local initiatives as "false competition".
- Many monopolies are based on "intellectual property rights" - often based on very flimsy claims. With weak research the Patent Office delegates the job of fighting weak patents to companies. Given the costs involved only the richest will take the trouble.
Great article. I would suggest that income inequality and the general hopelessness of the populace requires both approaches. I would like to see a "moon shot" approach that tackles the problem from every angle. Pre-distribution efforts make sense long term. Re-distribution can help right now.
1. Claw back the taxes not collected from Apple, GE, et al.
2. Raise the Social Security cap - in fact, why should there be a cap at all?
3. Invest in our infrastructure in a way that emulates the Great Depression response. Haven't the people demonstrated just how tough it is out there? Why do you think Trump and Bernie had such huge appeal? The complaint is universal. Is there any question that our roads and bridges desperately need repair? Our rail system? Our overpriced inferior internet connections? It's about jobs and making this a country to be proud of - isn't it?
4. Enroll all children and adults over the age of 50 in Medicare to make it more solvent and allow those middle age folks to do the thing they always wanted to do - run their own small business! Millions of folks stay in stagnant jobs for one reason: health insurance. Let them purchase it (at a reasonable price) through a proven system and free them to innovate.
5. Add your own good ideas - there are hundreds of them. Let's get off our duffs and do something. Something for the economy and something for the people. The Oligarchs have had a great run. It's time for us now.
1. Claw back the taxes not collected from Apple, GE, et al.
2. Raise the Social Security cap - in fact, why should there be a cap at all?
3. Invest in our infrastructure in a way that emulates the Great Depression response. Haven't the people demonstrated just how tough it is out there? Why do you think Trump and Bernie had such huge appeal? The complaint is universal. Is there any question that our roads and bridges desperately need repair? Our rail system? Our overpriced inferior internet connections? It's about jobs and making this a country to be proud of - isn't it?
4. Enroll all children and adults over the age of 50 in Medicare to make it more solvent and allow those middle age folks to do the thing they always wanted to do - run their own small business! Millions of folks stay in stagnant jobs for one reason: health insurance. Let them purchase it (at a reasonable price) through a proven system and free them to innovate.
5. Add your own good ideas - there are hundreds of them. Let's get off our duffs and do something. Something for the economy and something for the people. The Oligarchs have had a great run. It's time for us now.
79
Be careful about the idea of raising the social security cap. SS is a retirement security program which treats everyone the same (proportionally) irrespective of wealth -- broadly speaking, participants get out from the program in retirement an amount pegged to what they put in while working, i.e. less in less out, more in more out, up to the cap. Thus within the SS program there is no transfer from the wealthy to the poor as such, meaning it is not a welfare program: it was designed that way from the beginning to protect it from being attacked as a welfare program and imperiling its entire basis. Changing that underlying premise would be dangerous. Income inequality is certainly a problem, but SS is really not an appropriate tool to address it. There are better ways.
1
I'm certainly no economist. But, I've been around the block a few times, as they say. Something as complex as the most prosperous and powerful nation's economy in a time of globalization into a world economy really can't be shifted/changed by one approach. If our goal is to address inequality, monopsony really must have a role. One would be foolish to believe, however, that the effects of any policy will have a relatively similar impact on all businesses/industries. When has that ever been true about anything?
Mergers sometimes benefit workers and consumers. Often that involves small to middle sized companies. Sometimes they do not. The consolidation of behemoth companies (including banks) always have more downsides for workers and consumers than not. This does need to be controlled. Equally important is re-education & training for workers as globalization advances. But that has to somehow ensure that workers leaving higher paying jobs aren't starting out in new careers on the bottom rung. Special consideration needs to be given to older workers in that area. We often can't find employers to hire us without disrupting our lives by moving to new communities and leaving all we have built up behind.
Economic policy has to employ redistribution as well as predistribution. Very likely in different ratios for different industries. Industries also need to respect and value their workers. Few do today.
Mergers sometimes benefit workers and consumers. Often that involves small to middle sized companies. Sometimes they do not. The consolidation of behemoth companies (including banks) always have more downsides for workers and consumers than not. This does need to be controlled. Equally important is re-education & training for workers as globalization advances. But that has to somehow ensure that workers leaving higher paying jobs aren't starting out in new careers on the bottom rung. Special consideration needs to be given to older workers in that area. We often can't find employers to hire us without disrupting our lives by moving to new communities and leaving all we have built up behind.
Economic policy has to employ redistribution as well as predistribution. Very likely in different ratios for different industries. Industries also need to respect and value their workers. Few do today.
4
"strengthening collective bargaining rights"
How do you "strengthen" collective bargaining rights -- like there is some kind of continuum? It seems mostly all or nothing at all to me. I mean, 6% union density is analogous to a blood pressure of 20 over 10.
Easiest and most practicable approach -- most crying need! -- progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, MN, IL, MN, NY, MD, ETC?) can add to federal labor protections(just as with the minimum wage), just not subtract (federal preemption).
The most crying need is to seriously CRIMINALIZE UNION BUSTING. Being muscled out of the only form of association that can create both a truly free labor market process and can supply the only true path to political power balance for most Americans -- needs to be taken at least as seriously as that FBI warning that you face 5 years and a $250,000 fine for making a copy of that DVD.
There isn't even a phony FBI warning against union busting: only placebo protections even for ORGANIZERS who, after being fired for years, can be reinstated only to be fired again for "something else" -- not even a placebo deterrent to protect ORGANIZING -- nothing. If caught taking a movie in the movie the FBI warning comes back alive and you will receive a couple of years federal hospitality.
Whenever progressives take the Congress back, a practical addition to federal protection might be to empower the NLRB, on finding of union busting, to mandate a union certifying election.
How do you "strengthen" collective bargaining rights -- like there is some kind of continuum? It seems mostly all or nothing at all to me. I mean, 6% union density is analogous to a blood pressure of 20 over 10.
Easiest and most practicable approach -- most crying need! -- progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, MN, IL, MN, NY, MD, ETC?) can add to federal labor protections(just as with the minimum wage), just not subtract (federal preemption).
The most crying need is to seriously CRIMINALIZE UNION BUSTING. Being muscled out of the only form of association that can create both a truly free labor market process and can supply the only true path to political power balance for most Americans -- needs to be taken at least as seriously as that FBI warning that you face 5 years and a $250,000 fine for making a copy of that DVD.
There isn't even a phony FBI warning against union busting: only placebo protections even for ORGANIZERS who, after being fired for years, can be reinstated only to be fired again for "something else" -- not even a placebo deterrent to protect ORGANIZING -- nothing. If caught taking a movie in the movie the FBI warning comes back alive and you will receive a couple of years federal hospitality.
Whenever progressives take the Congress back, a practical addition to federal protection might be to empower the NLRB, on finding of union busting, to mandate a union certifying election.
2
Those are nice incremental steps, but "tax increases on the affluent" and "a stronger social safety net" are what;s ended, which means a political solution must happen if we're to prosper one and all.
3
Using the word 'redistribution' is egotistical and serves no pragmatic purposes. While the think tank type, left and right alike, like to come up with big words to show how smart they are, it is far more effective to come up with neutral wordings so not to let the extremists to red-meat baiting. But sadly, many think tank type are not doing this to effect real change; rather, they do this to advance their careers
1
I agree with your statement of a problem, but not with your analysis of the cause. The Republicans are much better at coming up with emotional terms like "death taxes" to replace the neutral and accurate "estate taxes" or replacing the accurate term "global warming" with the more neutral term "climate change."
Democrats should perhaps stop using accurate terms like "redistribution" and come up words with more psychological punch to them. I say perhaps because I fear this would lead to a further diminution of accuracy in our political language and our political language is bad enough as it is.
Democrats should perhaps stop using accurate terms like "redistribution" and come up words with more psychological punch to them. I say perhaps because I fear this would lead to a further diminution of accuracy in our political language and our political language is bad enough as it is.
2
This does not seem to reflect reality: More competitive market-oriented sectors of the economy - restaurants, fast-food, small shops,the garment industry back when it was larger, etc. pay lower wages, because the pressure of being price-takers leads employers to avoid unions and keep wages low. Larger companies can by unionized more readily, and can be pressured by organized workers to pay better, and also face regulations that often do not apply to competitive sectors. This sounds like an excuse to push for more market-oriented approaches that are more likely to weaken workers' bargaining power. What American workers need are full employment policies and strong unions, or outright worker ownership and self-management, and large companies run as stakeholder democracies, not only for "shareholder value."
3
How nice to read something of substance during this election. The comments are civil and thoughtful as well. Good model for what the election season in our country could be. It speaks directly to the problems many Americans see and feel everyday and want thoughtful action on from our elected officials.
8
Orthodox Capitalism claims that the only reason companies exist is to benefit the investors. With that as the essential dogma of Capitalism it is impossible for corporations to provide the work and salaries for all the people who need/want work and income.
The desire to accumulate and concentrate wealth may well be encoded in our DNA, or it may just be promoted by our society. Either way, our human needs must be satisfied but subjected to boundaries.
Corporations are part of human society and therefore must participate in the general health and welfare of the society, and that includes directly, or indirectly creating meaningful work with adequate compensation to everyone who wants/needs employment and income.
I don't have a packaged solution, only a call to a new theory of Capitalism that acknowledges, but places boundaries on the essential human greed that drives the accumulation of wealth while ensuring that the society benefits as a whole.
No, this is not a call for Socialism, or any other existing social-economic theory; rather it is a call to define a new Orthodoxy that values both the Capitalist as well as the worker and the society as a whole.
Of course, to do that we have to acknowledge the flaws in the current Orthodoxy, and like all Orthodox thinking that will be met with strong resistance.
Right now we have business that is Sociopathic to Psychopathic and that is harming the entire nation as well as the planet, It is time for a real fundamental change.
The desire to accumulate and concentrate wealth may well be encoded in our DNA, or it may just be promoted by our society. Either way, our human needs must be satisfied but subjected to boundaries.
Corporations are part of human society and therefore must participate in the general health and welfare of the society, and that includes directly, or indirectly creating meaningful work with adequate compensation to everyone who wants/needs employment and income.
I don't have a packaged solution, only a call to a new theory of Capitalism that acknowledges, but places boundaries on the essential human greed that drives the accumulation of wealth while ensuring that the society benefits as a whole.
No, this is not a call for Socialism, or any other existing social-economic theory; rather it is a call to define a new Orthodoxy that values both the Capitalist as well as the worker and the society as a whole.
Of course, to do that we have to acknowledge the flaws in the current Orthodoxy, and like all Orthodox thinking that will be met with strong resistance.
Right now we have business that is Sociopathic to Psychopathic and that is harming the entire nation as well as the planet, It is time for a real fundamental change.
17
"The desire to accumulate and concentrate wealth may well be encoded in our DNA, or it may just be promoted by our society." No doubt it is encoded. The stash lets you survive the winter or the drought.
What society decides is how big a hoard you can accumulate at everybody else's expense. Right now we've let the legal size grow a little too extreme.
Historically, leveling occurred with beheading of the tyrant and burning of his castle, or more gently with taxes that take more from those at the top and spreading the wealth around.
Let's hope we can find the will to do that this time. And lets not worry about violating the "principles" of Capitalism. The market economy will be just fine even if a little more of it's output ends up buying shared "public" goods, rather than pushed into already fully stuffed private coffers.
What society decides is how big a hoard you can accumulate at everybody else's expense. Right now we've let the legal size grow a little too extreme.
Historically, leveling occurred with beheading of the tyrant and burning of his castle, or more gently with taxes that take more from those at the top and spreading the wealth around.
Let's hope we can find the will to do that this time. And lets not worry about violating the "principles" of Capitalism. The market economy will be just fine even if a little more of it's output ends up buying shared "public" goods, rather than pushed into already fully stuffed private coffers.
1
Manufacturing is changing our economy much faster and displacing more workers than this article addresses.
In relatively short order robotics and other programmed machines will be accountable for more layoffs than shipping jobs overseas and this will turn our labor market upside down. While production of this sort will address problems associated with population growth it will bring more layoffs making this discussion moot.
Sharing "in the profits they help create" will become de riguer for the citizenry, whether they helped create them or not. We are fast entering a world where population must be brought under control before life is made unbearable for those yet born.
If there is a "new movement" in economics that will shape the next President's agenda it won't be the result of paying labor less, so much as not needing to hire human labor.
In relatively short order robotics and other programmed machines will be accountable for more layoffs than shipping jobs overseas and this will turn our labor market upside down. While production of this sort will address problems associated with population growth it will bring more layoffs making this discussion moot.
Sharing "in the profits they help create" will become de riguer for the citizenry, whether they helped create them or not. We are fast entering a world where population must be brought under control before life is made unbearable for those yet born.
If there is a "new movement" in economics that will shape the next President's agenda it won't be the result of paying labor less, so much as not needing to hire human labor.
3
The factor that is going over the heads is the dramatic unbalancing of the power relationship between employer and employee in the era of trade liberalization.
Use some game theory, oh "genius" economists, and quantify how much the effective removal of borders for capital has changed labor-management wage/benefit negotiations over the last 40 years.
I'd hypothesize that it's utterly collapsed it, and the sole reason for it is that politicians have neglected to free laborers from the chains that today's borders truly represent. What happens next? When workers demand better pay in return for higher productivity, employers run across the border because they can (we can't unless we wait several months, pay through the teeth for a tourist visa, and then pay hundreds more and wait years for work authorization on the other side,) and use that border-crossing-difficulty disparity ALONE to extract ever more of the laborers' added value from their remuneration.
And who gave them that disparate passage? Why, the very politicians at whom most of us are outraged. Based on this - rightly so.
Use some game theory, oh "genius" economists, and quantify how much the effective removal of borders for capital has changed labor-management wage/benefit negotiations over the last 40 years.
I'd hypothesize that it's utterly collapsed it, and the sole reason for it is that politicians have neglected to free laborers from the chains that today's borders truly represent. What happens next? When workers demand better pay in return for higher productivity, employers run across the border because they can (we can't unless we wait several months, pay through the teeth for a tourist visa, and then pay hundreds more and wait years for work authorization on the other side,) and use that border-crossing-difficulty disparity ALONE to extract ever more of the laborers' added value from their remuneration.
And who gave them that disparate passage? Why, the very politicians at whom most of us are outraged. Based on this - rightly so.
2
Except for the fact that in some industries your underlying assumption is false - and wages have been rising very fast, along with productivity.
You are right that in other industries the movement of capital has greatly increased the potential workforce and consolidated the producers.
Which is the point of these economists. In these industries a more basic approach is needed.
But this certainly not true of all sectors of the economy, nor is it an inherent fact of trade.
You are right that in other industries the movement of capital has greatly increased the potential workforce and consolidated the producers.
Which is the point of these economists. In these industries a more basic approach is needed.
But this certainly not true of all sectors of the economy, nor is it an inherent fact of trade.
Uhhh. How does "pre distribution" differ from the axiomatic assumptions of modern market economics?
It doesn't. It moves towards making those assumptions real.
But who cares. This liberal conservative nonsense is such fun.
It doesn't. It moves towards making those assumptions real.
But who cares. This liberal conservative nonsense is such fun.
"raising taxes on the wealthy and using money to increase benefits for the
working class definitely would? But the recent stories on Trump's taxes
suggest that raising taxes isn't sufficient to help; the IRS has to collect
the taxes and come down hard on the free riders like Trump.
working class definitely would? But the recent stories on Trump's taxes
suggest that raising taxes isn't sufficient to help; the IRS has to collect
the taxes and come down hard on the free riders like Trump.
7
Ah, If we just "read between the lines" Clinton's pre-distribution economic plan is revealed. Is this like the plan to break up big banks and reinstitute Glass-Steagall--how is that coming along? I am sure she mentioned her plan somewhere in the many speeches she delivered to Goldman Sachs et al.
4
You often read that some Executive's salary was justified by the Board saying:
"If you want to find top notch Leaders you have to pay top salaries."
But how many top Executives are geniuses in what they do and how many
companies prosper beyond all expectations because of those Executives ?
Nothing will really change until these Executives realise how immoral it is
to making millions while some Employees are making minimum wages.
"If you want to find top notch Leaders you have to pay top salaries."
But how many top Executives are geniuses in what they do and how many
companies prosper beyond all expectations because of those Executives ?
Nothing will really change until these Executives realise how immoral it is
to making millions while some Employees are making minimum wages.
28
Yes and do we ever hear "If you want to find top notch Employees you have to pay top salaries?"
Thanks to Bernie Sanders for arousing the public's passion for fixing inequality as a first order priority. Hillary also thankfully will continue to see inequality as a major flaw in our country. Getting minimum wages up and paid parental leave as well as tuition free public colleges are direct,efficient ways to address inequality. These measures would end much suffering and make people happier.
3
Re- distributionist, pre-distributionist? Academic. There is unsatisfactory distribution, and we agree it should be changed. Individuals at the top get too much, and everybody else too little.
Two causes: First is the always-present tendency for “them that’s got” to grab for even more. And those people use government to help expand their hoard. This was Adam Smith’s complaint in The Wealth of Nations.
The second cause is new technology that replaces human labor with machine labor. Nothing new here either.
What is new is how quickly a new generation of technology replaces its predecessor. It’s a timeframe much shorter than a person’s working lifespan. Result? “Labor obsolescence” on a massive scale.
Workers with obsolete skills beg for work. They’re not organized. They elbow each other for the economy’s crumbs. They hold down wages. They produce a labor surplus at the bottom of the ladder.
The fix: Tighten the labor supply by pulling a sizable chunk out of the pool and sending it to school. One year out of every 10 back for a refresh, perhaps three times during a normal working career. Everybody gets a sabbatical every ten years for a skills refresh.
Three benefits: The economy operates with a more capable workforce. Tighter labor supply at the bottom restores some worker bargaining power. Individuals enjoy much greater security, because risk of being tossed aside as obsolete is eliminated. A higher performing, higher quality-of-life economy.
Two causes: First is the always-present tendency for “them that’s got” to grab for even more. And those people use government to help expand their hoard. This was Adam Smith’s complaint in The Wealth of Nations.
The second cause is new technology that replaces human labor with machine labor. Nothing new here either.
What is new is how quickly a new generation of technology replaces its predecessor. It’s a timeframe much shorter than a person’s working lifespan. Result? “Labor obsolescence” on a massive scale.
Workers with obsolete skills beg for work. They’re not organized. They elbow each other for the economy’s crumbs. They hold down wages. They produce a labor surplus at the bottom of the ladder.
The fix: Tighten the labor supply by pulling a sizable chunk out of the pool and sending it to school. One year out of every 10 back for a refresh, perhaps three times during a normal working career. Everybody gets a sabbatical every ten years for a skills refresh.
Three benefits: The economy operates with a more capable workforce. Tighter labor supply at the bottom restores some worker bargaining power. Individuals enjoy much greater security, because risk of being tossed aside as obsolete is eliminated. A higher performing, higher quality-of-life economy.
13
Massive public pressure on officials to fix our rising inequality could work wonders in getting those in power to find creative ways to address the terrible gap we have now between rich and poor. Those officials want to keep their jobs and get reelected. Campaign finance reform to stop the government from being for sale is one of the best things that could happen. for justice. No academic lingo really needed.
6
Historically, when labor unions were stronger, so was the middle class. I don't pretend to understand the finer nuances of economic theories, but I do understand how being in a good union can really help workers to get and maintain good wages and working conditions. While the plight of workers is of primary importance in this discussion, what about those citizens who are unable to work such as the severely disabled, the elderly and the infirm? These people are usually within families and they need a lot of support and care. What does economic theory say about that portion of the population?
10
"Tweaking overtime rules or preventing mega-mergers might help reduce inequality, in other words. But raising taxes on the wealthy and using the money to increase benefits for the working class definitely would."
********
As President, Clinton will have to use the tools and authority that are available to her. For the time being, she will have a Republican House and, after 2018, a Republican Senate again. But, it's better to do something to help low- and moderate-income Americans than to do nothing.
********
As President, Clinton will have to use the tools and authority that are available to her. For the time being, she will have a Republican House and, after 2018, a Republican Senate again. But, it's better to do something to help low- and moderate-income Americans than to do nothing.
1
The average person has know that monopolies or approximate monopolies are bad for consumers, employees, students, ..., and citizens. It is nice to see that the economic profession is catching up.
The Federal Trade Commission should apply higher standards for approving mergers and acquisitions. But Clinton (assuming she is the next president) should do more basic things. She should fix campaign finance, fix taxes, and fix Wall Street.
The Federal Trade Commission should apply higher standards for approving mergers and acquisitions. But Clinton (assuming she is the next president) should do more basic things. She should fix campaign finance, fix taxes, and fix Wall Street.
11
We now live in a world of oligopolies dominating every aspect of our lives. Want something to eat on Saturday night? Unless you seek out the local family style restaurant (of which there are not so many anymore), you're likely to end up spending money at a franchise chain eatery.
Need a doctor, or to take your kid to the ER? You're likely to end up seeing someone working for one of a handful of massive health care corporations, or visiting an ER that is in a hospital owned by that massive corporation.
Need a cable or cell phone provider? Good luck finding anyone actually willing to fight for your business since there is a cartel that controls the prices.
All of this is the result of unfettered capitalism - where the large swallows the small, and the even larger swallows the large. And so it goes until we have only a handful of choices to buy from, and a handful of choices to work for.
Policies that would aim to create an environment that would actually discourage mega-corporations and promote creation of small / local businesses in any given market would improve the lot of us as workers as well as consumers.
I pray this is something our next President works towards right away.
Need a doctor, or to take your kid to the ER? You're likely to end up seeing someone working for one of a handful of massive health care corporations, or visiting an ER that is in a hospital owned by that massive corporation.
Need a cable or cell phone provider? Good luck finding anyone actually willing to fight for your business since there is a cartel that controls the prices.
All of this is the result of unfettered capitalism - where the large swallows the small, and the even larger swallows the large. And so it goes until we have only a handful of choices to buy from, and a handful of choices to work for.
Policies that would aim to create an environment that would actually discourage mega-corporations and promote creation of small / local businesses in any given market would improve the lot of us as workers as well as consumers.
I pray this is something our next President works towards right away.
27
Salman: The more an industry is regulated, the fewer competitors there are. Of the examples you use, healthcare, cell phones, and cable are all highly regulated, as is banking and finance, to name two other industries you didn't mention but could have. The regulatory burden makes it impossible for a small, scrappy upstart to even compete, because the regulators assume that every competitor can afford to employ the hundreds or thousands of people needed to fill out the required compliance forms. In addition, regulations freeze innovation in an industry, since the regulators will not accept something new for which they don't have rules already, as evidenced by the massive legal battles that Uber has had to compete with the entrenched and regulated taxi industry, costing the company and ultimately its customers billions.
In other words, a lack of competition in a given industry has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "unfettered capitalism" as you claim, and everything to do with the parasitic regulatory state.
Your complaint about chain restaurants is wrong in a different way. Most of these outlets are not owned by the companies whose name they use, but by mom and pop or small business individual owners. You don't like where other people eat? Tough. No one forces you to patronize them, and other people choosing differently than you is not a flaw in the free market, but a feature.
In other words, a lack of competition in a given industry has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "unfettered capitalism" as you claim, and everything to do with the parasitic regulatory state.
Your complaint about chain restaurants is wrong in a different way. Most of these outlets are not owned by the companies whose name they use, but by mom and pop or small business individual owners. You don't like where other people eat? Tough. No one forces you to patronize them, and other people choosing differently than you is not a flaw in the free market, but a feature.
This implies that the decline of labor unions is organic and naturally occurring, but it is not. From Taft Hartley forward, unions have been restricted via legislation and weak enforcement of labor laws designed to protect them that are still on the books.
Given how corrupt and broken our political system is, Congress could do us the courtesy of removing restrictions on labor, so we can fight for ourselves since Democrats only weakly fight for us, and Republicans act like giving someone a job at all is an act of charity.
A "job creator" is not doing you a favor by giving you a job. You are making more for that employer than he pays you or he wouldn't have hired you or kept you.
Likewise, unions can only negotiate a larger piece of the profit pie; they can't take what a company doesn't have.
Our work was become vastly more productive over the last few decades, but all of the new income created from that goes to execs and the investor class even though it's tough to argue that their contribution is led to that increase in productivity.
Given how corrupt and broken our political system is, Congress could do us the courtesy of removing restrictions on labor, so we can fight for ourselves since Democrats only weakly fight for us, and Republicans act like giving someone a job at all is an act of charity.
A "job creator" is not doing you a favor by giving you a job. You are making more for that employer than he pays you or he wouldn't have hired you or kept you.
Likewise, unions can only negotiate a larger piece of the profit pie; they can't take what a company doesn't have.
Our work was become vastly more productive over the last few decades, but all of the new income created from that goes to execs and the investor class even though it's tough to argue that their contribution is led to that increase in productivity.
17
Perhaps this approach will increase the earning of those who work for large corporations and who could be unionized, but it will do nothing for the multitude of workers who work for small businesses. I suppose if the unionizable (to coin a term) employees of large corporations were paid more, some employees of small business would decamp for the large corporations but that seems more theoretical than real.
3
Actually, a stronger labor movement also helps workers who aren't in unions. This is because their employers are now competing for workers who could conceivably go get a job at one of those larger firms. Most companies give workers sick pay, vacations and good working conditions. Those benefits didn't exist before the Labor Union Movement. This is a case where a rising tide does indeed lift almost all boats.
10
A discussion of "labor market monopsony" and "predistributive policy" is precisely what should NOT be undertaken, unless you want voters' eyes to glaze over.
The issue should be posed in terms of basic fairness and basic human rights
Democrats should unapologetically and unambiguously commit themselves to guaranteeing a living wage job to anyone who wants to work. Period. Creating jobs should be seen as one of the primary functions of government. It should be seen as a primary objective, rather than merely a by-product of economic growth.
Dems should offer ONLY economic policies that have an actual, empirical history of expanding the middle class. And they should be pointing out the Republicans have offered no policies to that end since Richard Nixon.
The issue should be posed in terms of basic fairness and basic human rights
Democrats should unapologetically and unambiguously commit themselves to guaranteeing a living wage job to anyone who wants to work. Period. Creating jobs should be seen as one of the primary functions of government. It should be seen as a primary objective, rather than merely a by-product of economic growth.
Dems should offer ONLY economic policies that have an actual, empirical history of expanding the middle class. And they should be pointing out the Republicans have offered no policies to that end since Richard Nixon.
15
Imagine you are an African woman from a remote province in Africa where you have no electricity or running water. You go to work in the cities or another country as a domestic helper, confident that you know how to do housework. Housework is housework - after all.
So you go to work in a home with vacuum cleaners, washing machine, microwave, toaster, etc and you don't know how to use them. Housework isn't housework after all. Imagine your culture shock from a technology perspective. Imagine how inadequate or stupid you would feel.
Many workers to feel stupid and inadequate because they don't know how to operate the new machines and systems. Many of them have been displaced by new technologies.
I work in the field of the Internet of Things ("IOT") and can see how it will reshape many jobs over the next 10 to 15 years. Some jobs will be dumbed down, others will disappear. New jobs will be created but it is unclear in what numbers and requiring what skills. The 30 - 40 something year old technologically displaced worker will be in technological culture shock.
Many will feel homesick and want a revolution to TAKE their life back. They will search for someone to help them.
I believe in different ways both Bernie and HRC want to help these people. Dump and GOP don't give a DAMN coz they see these people as LOSERS.
When a choice must be made, between the Bernie Sanders and the Dumps of the world, I hope the choice is Bernie.
So you go to work in a home with vacuum cleaners, washing machine, microwave, toaster, etc and you don't know how to use them. Housework isn't housework after all. Imagine your culture shock from a technology perspective. Imagine how inadequate or stupid you would feel.
Many workers to feel stupid and inadequate because they don't know how to operate the new machines and systems. Many of them have been displaced by new technologies.
I work in the field of the Internet of Things ("IOT") and can see how it will reshape many jobs over the next 10 to 15 years. Some jobs will be dumbed down, others will disappear. New jobs will be created but it is unclear in what numbers and requiring what skills. The 30 - 40 something year old technologically displaced worker will be in technological culture shock.
Many will feel homesick and want a revolution to TAKE their life back. They will search for someone to help them.
I believe in different ways both Bernie and HRC want to help these people. Dump and GOP don't give a DAMN coz they see these people as LOSERS.
When a choice must be made, between the Bernie Sanders and the Dumps of the world, I hope the choice is Bernie.
9
Learning to use a toaster, vacuum cleaner and washing machine is not hard. My kids were able to learn how to use them when very young. I started learning how to use computers after I was age 50 because that is when they came into the workplace. Most people are capable of learning new things even in middle age or later. Employers need to believe in them and they in themselves and they need opportunities to learn on the job.
Learning to use stuff may or may not be hard, but being in culture shock is. That's the point I was trying to make, but failing.
1
As we age, our ability to learn diminishes because we start with a lifetime of experiences that guide and direct us. I used to run a computer lab and I can assure you that generally speaking, as the age of students in classes went up, the success rate went down.
My mother was using computers in her 80's and into her 90's. Mostly email and bank access. She could do what she needed to. Would she be employable? Not a chance.
My mother was using computers in her 80's and into her 90's. Mostly email and bank access. She could do what she needed to. Would she be employable? Not a chance.
It is good to hear that 'liberal economists' are putting a lot of hard work into solving the present crisis-like situation. It is also quite heartening to note that both Democrat (Oregon) and Republican (Texas) Senators almost prepared a viable bipartisan package, as per NYT (yesterday). However, we still need to deliberate. With gobs of cash sitting outside USA, it is imperative that a win-win situation is somehow evolved. But whatever we say here, a bipartisan consensus could "never" be worked out unless we seriously talk about "some concessions" to the 0.1% - then only a win-win situation will arise.
For those who are against (new) taxation, deductions worth $1.3 trillion should be abolished to enlarge the tax receipts, and "immediate" depreciation of the assets created within a given year could be considered - to spur 'growth' in terms of more capital expenditure (read, more jobs)...
For those who are against (new) taxation, deductions worth $1.3 trillion should be abolished to enlarge the tax receipts, and "immediate" depreciation of the assets created within a given year could be considered - to spur 'growth' in terms of more capital expenditure (read, more jobs)...
2
More fluffy policy nothingness from the status quo that promises our children a "premature and perverted death."
Economists, liberal or conservative, paid propagandists like AEI, are variations of The Music Man, conscious or not. Another apt reference is "the experts" from "The Best and the Brightest."
With these people you get investment-grade cuff links and a sky and ocean coming for our descendants with weapons of mass extinction.
You would think that they would realize that the sky and ocean are rather fundamental. They summon a recall of this passage from "All Quiet on the Western Front"
"How senseless is everything that can ever be written, done, or thought, when such things are possible. It must all be lies and of no account when the culture of a thousand years could not prevent this steam of blood being poured out, these torture-chambers in their hundreds of thousands. A hospital alone shows what war is.”
Complexity scientist, physicist:
“Society is facing a new and unprecedented challenge — responding to its own overwhelming complexity. The structure of our society must change.” Yaneer Bar-Yam
We're in Anthropocene, exponentially different environs from Adam Smith's era. Cultural selection increasingly drives natural selection, hence we're increasingly doing natural selection with monetary code. FAIL.
The problems of economics, both in theory and practice, are fundamental and lethal.
Culture, Complexity & Code: http://ow.ly/4mJQ2r
Economists, liberal or conservative, paid propagandists like AEI, are variations of The Music Man, conscious or not. Another apt reference is "the experts" from "The Best and the Brightest."
With these people you get investment-grade cuff links and a sky and ocean coming for our descendants with weapons of mass extinction.
You would think that they would realize that the sky and ocean are rather fundamental. They summon a recall of this passage from "All Quiet on the Western Front"
"How senseless is everything that can ever be written, done, or thought, when such things are possible. It must all be lies and of no account when the culture of a thousand years could not prevent this steam of blood being poured out, these torture-chambers in their hundreds of thousands. A hospital alone shows what war is.”
Complexity scientist, physicist:
“Society is facing a new and unprecedented challenge — responding to its own overwhelming complexity. The structure of our society must change.” Yaneer Bar-Yam
We're in Anthropocene, exponentially different environs from Adam Smith's era. Cultural selection increasingly drives natural selection, hence we're increasingly doing natural selection with monetary code. FAIL.
The problems of economics, both in theory and practice, are fundamental and lethal.
Culture, Complexity & Code: http://ow.ly/4mJQ2r
4
Without fully protecting consumers, it seems that Democrats have been choosing workers compensation as a way to attack antitrust behavior of corporations. Let me be frank about this. Banks now charge high level of interest rates and fees for the credit cards in the lowest interest environment over centuries because consumers don't have many choices in the credit card selection. Telephone and cable companies charge higher level of fees for TV, cellphone or internet service without much improvement of their services. There are numerous cases of rigid higher fees and prices being charged by the corporations due to increasing M&A activities by the corporations. Investors or Wall Street encourage this antitrust behavior by the corporations as the way to maximize corporate dividends.
4
How ironic. The Obama administration puts out a paper noting “the idea that when there isn’t enough competition among businesses, it is bad news for workers.” Where were these crack economists over the past 8 years? Since 2008 American firms have engaged in one of the largest rounds of mergers in history – allowing companies to increase market share and cut costs (none of which is passed on to consumers) and minimize salary increases. And who has been President while this massive round of mergers were approved? Obama!
The cable television industry has become more tightly controlled and many American rely on a monopolistic supplier; prices have risen at twice the rate of inflation over the past 5 years. Consolidation in railroads has seen freight prices rise by 40% in real terms and return on capital almost double since 2004. (Why do you think Buffett bought a railroad?) Airlines made $24BB in 2015, more than Alphabet. Even as fuel prices decreased, this was not passed on to customers. Do to consolidation we now have 4 dominant airline firms and return on capital is similar to Silicon Valley. The share of income in the nonfarm business sector accruing to labor has dropped precipitously under Obama and is at the lowest level on record.
Hillary has said she would put Bill in charge of the economy. Let us hope he understands how to unleash competition!!
The cable television industry has become more tightly controlled and many American rely on a monopolistic supplier; prices have risen at twice the rate of inflation over the past 5 years. Consolidation in railroads has seen freight prices rise by 40% in real terms and return on capital almost double since 2004. (Why do you think Buffett bought a railroad?) Airlines made $24BB in 2015, more than Alphabet. Even as fuel prices decreased, this was not passed on to customers. Do to consolidation we now have 4 dominant airline firms and return on capital is similar to Silicon Valley. The share of income in the nonfarm business sector accruing to labor has dropped precipitously under Obama and is at the lowest level on record.
Hillary has said she would put Bill in charge of the economy. Let us hope he understands how to unleash competition!!
41
This article circles from a promising 'new' approach back to not one of "the biggest challenges facing our economy".
If Obama had proposed radical or even gentle policy changes around corporate strategies to siphon profits to the 1% would Congress would have supported him?
They obstructed every initiative President Obama put forth. Diluting Health Care reform to its pitiable state is one example. As you say, William, "Let's hope..."
If Obama had proposed radical or even gentle policy changes around corporate strategies to siphon profits to the 1% would Congress would have supported him?
They obstructed every initiative President Obama put forth. Diluting Health Care reform to its pitiable state is one example. As you say, William, "Let's hope..."
The narrative has been that mergers and aquisitions increase American competitiveness internationally, ditto reduced power for unions, reduced wages and so on. The same thinking has also led to an explosion of indebtedness in pursuit of reducing control and wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
Its time the economic narrative include the health of the homeland and its people.
Its time the economic narrative include the health of the homeland and its people.
3
Standard obvious question to ask - Who owns the country? Step back far enough and take a good look around the landscape, and you would have to conclude that the country is effectively "owned" by a relatively small number of people.
These people control the process of the Law (i.e. its formulation, targeting, and application). They largely control the formation, movement, and availability of capital.
And increasingly, they are re-establishing narrow and selective gateways to higher education mostly through corporatizing and executizing it by an astonishing increase in the number and cost of the executive (this translating into a prohibitive debt/cost increase to the middle and bottom), and a corresponding decrease in the independence and security of the teaching side.
Higher education is being co-opted and de-fanged as an instrumentality of cultural and social transformation before our very eyes, and contrarily re-formed into a tool for acculturating students into the logic of the present system and bringing about conformity (Paolo Friere).
Now it isn't like this kind of a situation hasn't existed before. (Yale's admission's criteria two generations ago specified a desirable candidate as a promising young man coming from an established protestant family.) We were a different country then.
Do we want to go back to that place, that set of basic beliefs about who/what is real and has value? Such questions appear to be both overtly and covertly up for negotiation.
These people control the process of the Law (i.e. its formulation, targeting, and application). They largely control the formation, movement, and availability of capital.
And increasingly, they are re-establishing narrow and selective gateways to higher education mostly through corporatizing and executizing it by an astonishing increase in the number and cost of the executive (this translating into a prohibitive debt/cost increase to the middle and bottom), and a corresponding decrease in the independence and security of the teaching side.
Higher education is being co-opted and de-fanged as an instrumentality of cultural and social transformation before our very eyes, and contrarily re-formed into a tool for acculturating students into the logic of the present system and bringing about conformity (Paolo Friere).
Now it isn't like this kind of a situation hasn't existed before. (Yale's admission's criteria two generations ago specified a desirable candidate as a promising young man coming from an established protestant family.) We were a different country then.
Do we want to go back to that place, that set of basic beliefs about who/what is real and has value? Such questions appear to be both overtly and covertly up for negotiation.
3
I find the US state and federal governments as well as for-profit and non-profit organizations remarkably easy to penetrate and influence, given great diligence on the part of an interested person of any citizenship or background. There is a myth of impenetrability circulating.
I am struck by the mingling of all US public and private organizations and some extranational organizations as well within families. This can be appreciated, for example, at large wedding parties.
Wealthy US citizens burdened by the time-consuming management of their estates recognize a need to reach out to their less-wealthy compatriots to provide intellectual stimulation.
I am struck by the mingling of all US public and private organizations and some extranational organizations as well within families. This can be appreciated, for example, at large wedding parties.
Wealthy US citizens burdened by the time-consuming management of their estates recognize a need to reach out to their less-wealthy compatriots to provide intellectual stimulation.
1
I'm glad to hear there are some ideas floating around up there, that are different from the usual rise taxes on the wealthy. I'm not opposed to the raising taxes on the wealthy, but that usually translates into raising taxes on the affluent, who unlike the Republican presidential candidate, don't have the laws, lawyers and accountants to protect them from this American civic duty.
The Republicans will surely block fiscal stimulus, unless it goes to the top .01%, then it can be called supply side economics. However, something obviously needs to be done. A lot of people, myself included, see our standard of living falling, and our children's future looking even worse. There needs to be some real improvement or the current crop of populists will get the revolution they seek.
The Republicans will surely block fiscal stimulus, unless it goes to the top .01%, then it can be called supply side economics. However, something obviously needs to be done. A lot of people, myself included, see our standard of living falling, and our children's future looking even worse. There needs to be some real improvement or the current crop of populists will get the revolution they seek.
5
In The Rise and Decline of Nations, published in 1982, Mancur Olson, a University of Maryland professor, explains how stable, affluent societies get in trouble. In Olson’s view, successful countries breed interest groups that become more and more powerful with time. The groups win government favors, in the form of new laws or friendly regulators that benefit them at everyone else’s expense. Not only do they grab a larger piece of the economic pie, but they stop the pie from growing as much as it could.
The lack of competition reduces sector efficiency and does not provide the return on capital that it could. I know the transportation and energy sectors and have been appalled at government's failure to explore, test and demonstrate the superconducting Maglev transport system that could be built alongside the Interstate highways and railways that would be cheaper, faster and require less maintenance than any other transport system. This remarkable system, invented by Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby has been tested by Japan at a government facility and is being offered to our market. It seems a little crazy that this system which could be the basis for a new, more efficient, emissions free transport.
It could be used here and also be an export is not being tested at a government facility. In Defense we don't hesitate to do a fly-off to reduce risk for investors but the Olson effect has been an obstacle to Maglev transport. See www.magneticglide.com for concept.
The lack of competition reduces sector efficiency and does not provide the return on capital that it could. I know the transportation and energy sectors and have been appalled at government's failure to explore, test and demonstrate the superconducting Maglev transport system that could be built alongside the Interstate highways and railways that would be cheaper, faster and require less maintenance than any other transport system. This remarkable system, invented by Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby has been tested by Japan at a government facility and is being offered to our market. It seems a little crazy that this system which could be the basis for a new, more efficient, emissions free transport.
It could be used here and also be an export is not being tested at a government facility. In Defense we don't hesitate to do a fly-off to reduce risk for investors but the Olson effect has been an obstacle to Maglev transport. See www.magneticglide.com for concept.
10
If the options were mutually exclusive, the hand-wringing subtext would be justifiable. But they're not: we should use both re-distributionist and pre-distributionist policies to edge towards a flatter wealth distribution curve, as appropriate and whenever available.
And we should think about the implications of labor obsolescence. But I may be getting ahead of myself there. There are people on this thread who think Podesta is a Marxist!!!
And we should think about the implications of labor obsolescence. But I may be getting ahead of myself there. There are people on this thread who think Podesta is a Marxist!!!
15
"Labor obsolescence" isn't a new phenomenon, but obsolescence after just a third of a working lifetime is. For many people there isn't any viable path to a skills refresh, so they get thrown overboard from the rapidly evolving economy. They struggle to stay afloat, and will work for crumbs. When so many will work for crumbs, those with the bread aren't motivated to share.
That should be the "right-wing American Enterprise Institute" for clarification.
20
From what I can tell from an article that's gives little information about the policies (the Wikipedia article on "monopsony" helps considerably) this "new movement" is a very watered down version of what was called neoliberalism (i.e. a new form of liberalism with an emphasis on industrial policy rather than redistribution) in the Democratic Party in the 1980s, led by economists like Lester Thurow and Robert Reich, before it was replaced by neoliberalism of the traditional and now all too familiar kind (really a short form for neoclassical liberalism). The funny thing is that redistribution has come back in favour among many if not most Americans so why haven't the Democrats embraced it? Because redistribution isn't just off the table because it's opposed by those big business supporting, wealthy favouring Republicans, it's off the table because of those only slightly less big business supporting, wealthy favouring Democrats, exemplified by President Obama and until very recently (assuming the change is genuine) Hillary Clinton.
28
Our current form of capitalism is broken.
It's encouraging to hear people acknowledge that a fundamental change in approach is required, if capitalism is to be saved.
But this is nowhere near bold enough. They're trying to catch up with a historic economic transformation that is already underway, which they failed to see coming. And that transformation is about to go exponential.
We need to find a way to harness the power of technology to restore shared prosperity. In a perfect world that would embed a free market-based redistribution of income and wealth within it, organically. Exploit the unstoppable transformation underway to restructure our broken economy, from the bottom-up, for more inclusive growth. Problem solved.
The extraordinary challenge is how to achieve that in an era where labor is already over-abundant, and is growing more so by the day, as technology encroaches on more and more high-skill, high-wage professions. On the other end, robots of increased dexterity and AI are poised to narrow the path to the middle class for the next billion people or so that will be joining the global workforce in the coming decades, which will present enormous challenges for developing countries.
Our approaches to globalization and technology for the past twenty five years have failed, and are the root cause of the growing unrest. The two are now intersecting in even more dangerous ways. There are no more important challenges than fixing both, urgently.
It's encouraging to hear people acknowledge that a fundamental change in approach is required, if capitalism is to be saved.
But this is nowhere near bold enough. They're trying to catch up with a historic economic transformation that is already underway, which they failed to see coming. And that transformation is about to go exponential.
We need to find a way to harness the power of technology to restore shared prosperity. In a perfect world that would embed a free market-based redistribution of income and wealth within it, organically. Exploit the unstoppable transformation underway to restructure our broken economy, from the bottom-up, for more inclusive growth. Problem solved.
The extraordinary challenge is how to achieve that in an era where labor is already over-abundant, and is growing more so by the day, as technology encroaches on more and more high-skill, high-wage professions. On the other end, robots of increased dexterity and AI are poised to narrow the path to the middle class for the next billion people or so that will be joining the global workforce in the coming decades, which will present enormous challenges for developing countries.
Our approaches to globalization and technology for the past twenty five years have failed, and are the root cause of the growing unrest. The two are now intersecting in even more dangerous ways. There are no more important challenges than fixing both, urgently.
9
It is in fact where there are monopolies that the labor market has a much better chance of having higher wages and higher benefits - look at the consolidation of the major industries post war - telephone, auto, steel, etc where from a collision of unions and employers, there was an increase in wages and benefits because the employers were able to pass on monopolistic costs to consumers. Same is currently happening in the tech space where there are a few first movers who have basically captured markets (apple, for example, or google or Facebook). No one is considering action to help those poor employees out.
But in much more competitive markets - like retail, where every cent matters, the wages are low, benefits are low, and legislation on minimum wages and benefits (Obamacare) is what is driving costs.
If you want to go back to the monopolistic tendencies of the 50s - 70 (Until ATT was broken up) then you will have higher prices, etc. But better wages. What broke the back of that was foreign completion in form of Japan coming out with better cars, steel, technology that the US in the 70-90s and breaking up the monopolistic but maternalistic American business model.
But in much more competitive markets - like retail, where every cent matters, the wages are low, benefits are low, and legislation on minimum wages and benefits (Obamacare) is what is driving costs.
If you want to go back to the monopolistic tendencies of the 50s - 70 (Until ATT was broken up) then you will have higher prices, etc. But better wages. What broke the back of that was foreign completion in form of Japan coming out with better cars, steel, technology that the US in the 70-90s and breaking up the monopolistic but maternalistic American business model.
5
I don't think I agree with this. I don't have definite data, but the industry I know most about, pharmaceuticals, there has been major consolidation, buying up competition and shutting them down, patent games....all the usual monopolistic practices, the number of jobs and income has dropped.
The income and job security in the tech industry isn't what it used to be either. A lot of people in the much vaunted STEM industries are new "sharing" economy disposable temp workers with lower wages and no benefits.
The income and job security in the tech industry isn't what it used to be either. A lot of people in the much vaunted STEM industries are new "sharing" economy disposable temp workers with lower wages and no benefits.
6
Hard to believe that the best policy is not simply to let the free market do its worst as far as the lowly workers are concerned. After all, what we want at the end of the day is the biggest possible pie for all, right? So just let the free market, free trade, globalization, and technology rip, eliminating whole job categories and increasing profitability as fast as possible, concentrating more and more wealth at the top. Then let taxes radically redistribute the proceeds to the out of work masses to give a nice, solid, guaranteed income for all. The huge gains in productivity will create much higher profits which will leave the billionaires richer than ever, with plenty left over for the fired workers. After all, you don't have to pay robots. Hasn't McKinsey--McKinsey, not Marx--projected that some huge percentage of workers will have nothing to work on in thirty years? 45% or something like that, right? Whatever the figures and time frame, we're starting on the glide path to that future, and the even more workerless future beyond, right now. Shouldn't we start adjusting our political economy for maximum efficiency and maximum profits for redistribution too, in order to steadily maintain a large enough mass of healthy consumers to buy what all this efficiency produces? Without consumers, no profits for billionaires or everyone else anymore, so the systems's finished, no matter how efficient it is. No economy can prosper with nothing but robots and Tiffany's supporting it.
2
Thanks for this. Might as well name it, Universal Basic Income, and get people used to the phrase. As I'm sure you are aware, it will be a tough political slog to get people on board with it.
9
monopsony, what a great new word! Finally a label that can truly represent the current day economic 'culture'. Very unsustainable.
John Podesta. Name is familiar. Ideas are not left of center, they are Marxist with a twist. I am sure nobody sees a problem letting these ideas loose in America.
Yes, god only knows we wouldn't want Marxist concepts like public libraries, police and fire departments (ooops, credit that Marxist Ben Franklin), parks, highways, education into our society, would we?
This "new" approach to liberal economic thought is not new but the old which was stashed into the unmentionables drawer forty years ago.
It is FDR populism. It's what made the Democratic Party the working man's party. It was what created the middle class. It was what won the Democrats election after election for a generation.
Matt Stoller wrote in The Atlantic last week about the political transaction that tucked Democratic populism into that dark drawer. It's a good and necessary read for anyone who wants to understand how/when/why the Democratic Party lost its way and began losing elections. The link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed...
It is FDR populism. It's what made the Democratic Party the working man's party. It was what created the middle class. It was what won the Democrats election after election for a generation.
Matt Stoller wrote in The Atlantic last week about the political transaction that tucked Democratic populism into that dark drawer. It's a good and necessary read for anyone who wants to understand how/when/why the Democratic Party lost its way and began losing elections. The link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed...
40
lets be honest here. These papers are just a bunch of hot air to give economists and philosophers at think tanks something to do.
In the real world you don't need to read position papers to find out that employers conspire to keep down wagers. A few years ago, for example, it was revealed that the top hi-tech firms had agreements not to recruit or hire engineers and programmers from each other. Billions of dollars in wages were lost by the workers. There were, of course, lawsuits. Law firms clambered to get onto the gravy train and they got the bulk of the money. Were employees made whole? That's actually a joke, of course not.
In the real world you don't need to read position papers to find out that employers conspire to keep down wagers. A few years ago, for example, it was revealed that the top hi-tech firms had agreements not to recruit or hire engineers and programmers from each other. Billions of dollars in wages were lost by the workers. There were, of course, lawsuits. Law firms clambered to get onto the gravy train and they got the bulk of the money. Were employees made whole? That's actually a joke, of course not.
61
The market would simply respond in ways not anticipated to mitigate or reverse the impacts to positive cash flow. If the problem is that the most profitable firms have fewer US employees, I do not see how forcing profit sharing will make a difference. Whatever Google's, Facebook's, Apple's, Goldman Sachs' and Netflix's faults, not rewarding employees does not seem an issue.
The people getting left behind don't work for the highly profitable firms. It is that imbalance that drives the income gap. If you pressure the less profitable firms, they may have no choice, but to take action to reduce the employee component as they can with technology to reduce that impact.
The football analogy only works because those rules do not inhibit profit. They prevent owners' egos from interfering with the football business. By restraining their excesses, they create more cash for themselves. Also the players, employees, take it on the chin.
I don't see any approach on the table for holders of capital that has that result.
The people getting left behind don't work for the highly profitable firms. It is that imbalance that drives the income gap. If you pressure the less profitable firms, they may have no choice, but to take action to reduce the employee component as they can with technology to reduce that impact.
The football analogy only works because those rules do not inhibit profit. They prevent owners' egos from interfering with the football business. By restraining their excesses, they create more cash for themselves. Also the players, employees, take it on the chin.
I don't see any approach on the table for holders of capital that has that result.
1
What is a less profitable firm? Financial firms, and companies like Microsoft etc. have turned their operations, secretaries and IT people in to temp labor. Junior equity analyst jobs - doing the grunt work at financial firms, are farmed out to India. Back office people are paid peanuts compared to the execs. They're healthcare costs go up every year or they don't have it -- because they are a temp. I know I've worked in the firms or have had friends work in firms like that for 20 years. Anecdotal as it maybe...less profitable firms could tweak their business models to make that work - at the price of the shareholders ofcouse....ah there's the rub.
19
This at least represents a marginal shift in thinking. Still, it at its most expansive and most beneficial, it wouldn't actually eliminate unemployment or poverty. Only a change in the institutional structure of the economy could accomplish that.
I have grounds to voice that complaint because I have developed a way to restructure the monetary system that would eliminate those two problems--along with taxes and public debt. At bottom, it is a revolutionary way of providing the economy with money.
URL's aren't allowed in comments, but one could get there by doing a search using my name, Stephen Yearwood.
Sure, I could be delusional. Or I could have stumbled upon a solution to the problem that has vexed the market-based economy the most from its advent to the present: how to structure a monetary system that would actually stabilize the economy, rather than contribute to instability.
That, by the way, was the question around which those who would found the Austrian school in economics--F. A. Hayek and them--initially coalesced in the early 1900's. They were unable to come up with a feasible answer before Keynes's model (1936) swept all before it.
I started out seeking a really just economy. The solution is to have an 'allotted income' provide the supply of money for the economy. It can be paid to an unlimited number of people at no cost. The supply of money--and through it the total output of the economy as a whole--would be governed by demographics, and only that,
I have grounds to voice that complaint because I have developed a way to restructure the monetary system that would eliminate those two problems--along with taxes and public debt. At bottom, it is a revolutionary way of providing the economy with money.
URL's aren't allowed in comments, but one could get there by doing a search using my name, Stephen Yearwood.
Sure, I could be delusional. Or I could have stumbled upon a solution to the problem that has vexed the market-based economy the most from its advent to the present: how to structure a monetary system that would actually stabilize the economy, rather than contribute to instability.
That, by the way, was the question around which those who would found the Austrian school in economics--F. A. Hayek and them--initially coalesced in the early 1900's. They were unable to come up with a feasible answer before Keynes's model (1936) swept all before it.
I started out seeking a really just economy. The solution is to have an 'allotted income' provide the supply of money for the economy. It can be paid to an unlimited number of people at no cost. The supply of money--and through it the total output of the economy as a whole--would be governed by demographics, and only that,
Oh...what is that saying; to each according to their need; from each according to their ability. That doesn't sound exactly right, but basically each person gets what they need and contributes to society what they do best. It was tried in the 1900s and failed spectacularly.
Accordingly, a new buyer of goods and services is required. That buyer is the federal government. It was only massive purchases of military armaments during WWII that finally broke the back of the GHreat Depression. A similar infusion in needed to restore re3la prosperity after the Great Recession.
However, instead of guns, the government can purchase butter. The sorry state of civil infrastructure, transportation systems and educational facilities provide ample opportunity for government funding of improvement through the private sector.
The government has to supply the demand not being provided by the private sector. There is nothing wrong with Wall Street being the leading purveyor of financial instruments and services. However, the government needs to step in to supplement the gap in consumer spending. This is not Socialism. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. The old system works but requires new inputs.