3 ms·
This article is incoherent. Title discusses income inequality, then 13 paragraphs discussing issues which are completely orthogonal to inequality (mobility, "po
by yummyfajitas 11y ago
This article is incoherent. Title discusses income inequality, then 13 paragraphs discussing issues which are completely orthogonal to inequality (mobility, "poverty" and overconsumption). The article never actually addresses inequality at all.
Then it starts comparing unrelated statistics (productivity and wages) and cribbing about how they diverge, and ignoring the real cause (the rise of non-wage benefits) for the divergence.
Finally, it devolves into random peripheral solutions like reducing share buybacks. Because somehow it'll be good for America if Qualcomm can't return money to shareholders to invest in Tesla? I guess it's better for CEO's to spend profits on empire building than for investors to seek returns?
Why is this nonsense here?
- guelo 11y agoProductivity and wages are most definitely related. Increased productivity is surplus value created per worker. In a strong labor market workers are able to demand some of the generated productivity surplus as wages. When workers have no power all the gains go to the owners which is what causes inequality to rise.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoIn a strong labor market workers are able to demand some of the generated productivity surplus as compensation. Wages have been somewhat flat because employers are paying workers in (untaxed) health and retirement benefits instead of (taxed) wages. Secondly, there is no particular reason wages should track productivity. Productivity is output / workers. If output increases due to capital (e.g. automation), there is no reason for wages to go up.