8 ms·

I'd like to add to this argument. If Ohio's steel industry grows by 500% who reaps the benefits? Me? The guy writing code in Portland, Oregon? No... its pre

I'd like to add to this argument. If Ohio's steel industry grows by 500% who reaps the benefits? Me? The guy writing code in Portland, Oregon? No... its pretty clear that a specific subset of people receive the benefits. The people who own the steel mill. The people who receive employment from the steel mill. The governments which tax the steel mill. But not me. Economic growth isn't uniform. Its an uneven field that benefits some and not others. That's why people move and change jobs. That's why societies abandon old interests and embrace new interests. I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way.

philipov 8y ago
Because many of those people have the experience of participating in economic growth then being denied the benefits, and so when they see it elsewhere, they assume the same thing is happening to those workers as well.
gooseifer 8y ago
The Federal government taxes the steel mill and the tertiary industries that are able to thrive because that steel mill is generating revenue. You directly benefit from countless federal programs and indirectly benefit from even more.
- rukittenme 8y ago
  That's really not the point. Replace Ohio with China or consider what percentage of after tax growth you're entitled to.
- rhacker 8y ago
  It's sad that people still think we benefit from taxes. If people patched their own roads, paid for their own schools, paid for the police, we'd still be far far far richer. Instead we're paying 10-20k PER BOMB. Every time we drop 5 bombs that could have been a freaking decent salary for a local teacher. Instead that money is killing, like 50-100 people. The world has become what it is because of the way we treat other people. People learn from people in power that -that is the way to treat others.
  - gooseifer 8y ago
    Getting people to pay for all of those things is what taxes are for. If it was completely voluntary how many people would actually pitch in to pay for all of these services? What about the communities that are unable to afford these services? It’s very easy to imagine that in your scenario that the very wealthy segment themselves off to pay for private services while everyone else suffers.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      > If it was completely voluntary how many people would actually pitch in to pay for all of these services? Government is the system where everyone expects to live at everyone elses expense. I ask you, if you believe nobody wants to pay for it, why do you think people want it at all? > What about the communities that are unable to afford these services? Government does not make it affordable. Government does not pay for it: someone pays for it, the government takes a cut, and gives it to someone else.
      - gooseifer 8y ago
        What is your proposition? How should things be run?
        conanbatt 8y ago
        As local and voluntary as possible, in today's framework.
harimau777 8y ago
I think that the complaint is more that the people who receive employment from the steel mill do not receive a portion of the increased profits. Instead they go only/mostly to the owner of the steel mill. As I understand it, looking at the numbers for the country as a whole is more meant as a way to observe overall trends. I don't think its meant to say that literally everyone across the country should benefit from any gains in any part of the country (or similarly gains in industries that they are not a part of),
rhacker 8y ago
I think the thing that is at odds with this attitude is that more and more prevalently "The people who receive employment from the steel mill." don't actually benefit from 500% growth. Instead they might have 6 additional months of job security with little to no raises. And that job security isn't a favor it's because that's the amount of time those workers are needed to get through whatever contract and not any further. In other words, the absolute maximum profit the steel mill can make. And of course your argument is on the side of the people that risked everything to start a steel mill. So yeah, it's a complex system - but that doesn't mean we have to shit on everyone else.
- briffle 8y ago
  More common, every other year or so, they will get a 'raise' that management loves to promote, that doesn't cover the cost of living adjustments the last 2 years.
- weberc2 8y ago
  It's not "shitting on" anyone; it's how (efficient) economics works. You don't earn more money unless you're producing more value. If a steel mill increases its output by way of some new automation, the accounting department and janitorial staff are unlikely to see a wage increase. The folks on the assembly line are also unlikely to see a wage increase because they're not more productive. The people who will be principally rewarded are the people who developed (including investing) the automation. In other words, as I understand it, economic rules aren't arbitrary--it's not like some cabal of mean rich guys is preventing us from flipping the switch that would make everyone obscenely rich (which is distinct from a cabal of mean rich guys _interfering_ with an economy to make themselves wealthy at the expense of the efficiency of the economy).
  - TimJYoung 8y ago
    If you pursue "efficiency" to extremes like this, you're going to bump up against political and social realities that are going to ruin your efficiencies in ways that make giving pay increases seem like a no-brainer.
darawk 8y ago
> I'd like to add to this argument. > If Ohio's steel industry grows by 500% who reaps the benefits? Me? The guy writing code in Portland, Oregon? > No... its pretty clear that a specific subset of people receive the benefits No, that's actually incorrect. You do benefit (usually), in the form of cheaper steel prices reducing the cost of many of the goods you buy.
gwbas1c 8y ago
That's a poor generalization. Is steel cheaper as a result of the growth? If so, then you benefit. Did you own stock in the company? Perhaps your 401k grew as a result of the growth?
poulsbohemian 8y ago
>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Maybe that's the real question then - what prevents people from participating in the economic growth? The economy has seen strong growth for about a decade now, yet stock ownership in the broader population remains low. Unemployment is low, but incomes also remain low outside the top 10% of earners. Overall savings across the population is very low, with by some studies approx 36% having _no_ retirement savings. So - I agree with your statement about economic growth not being uniform, but it does lead one to question what's preventing greater participation.
- Izkata 8y ago
  Forget retirement, something like 20% live paycheck-to-paycheck with no emergency fund and would be in crisis mode with an unexpected $500 bill.
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    Yes, I know, and I suspect the parent poster knows too.
- krapp 8y ago
  >but it does lead one to question what's preventing greater participation. It seems as if capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of owners and shareholders. Employees were never intended to participate beyond the means granted them by their wages, and the incentives behind the financial systems with which they could tend to fleece anyone but the wealthy. Somehow we've convinced ourselves that capitalism is supposed to be more egalitarian than it is. I think solutions begin with recognizing that the inequities we see in society are not a flaw in the system, but the system working as intended.
teekert 8y ago
Supposedly these people with increased wealth will be spending more, perhaps also in your sector.
izzydata 8y ago
I agree, but if the steel industry grew 500% then I am willing to bet executives saw 499% of the benefit and all employees remained the same.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
When you drive to another state, why are you entitled to use roads without potholes? You didn't contribute to that.
class_struggle 8y ago
Stuff like this annoys me. The workers in the steel mill aren't receiving the benefits of the 500% growth. it is largely going to the executives and not the workers.
komali2 8y ago
>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Can we use this entitlement argument elsewhere? Would that be fair? So, how would you feel if I restated this as: >I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic benefits, if they don't contribute to the pool of economic benefits Two issues I take with this: 1. Those incapable of contributing, such as the psychologically or physically unwell, must I guess just die 2. I could restate this further as "Returns from entitlement should correlate linearly with input to entitlement," that is, the more taxes in real dollars you pay, the more benefits you should get from the system, which I think is awful for many reasons.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  I would answer to 1.: It is a very different society, one where the top 90% give to the bottom 10%, to one where the middle 80% take from the top 10%, eat most and give scraps to the bottom 10%. A society that cares for the weak does not need to fund it with taxes, it can subsist on charity. You will see that in practice, always a middle class person takes the money first before it goes to the person that needs it.
billmalarky 8y ago
>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Tangentially related point: The problem occurs when advances in technology make it so the vast majority of humans are literally _unable_, not to be mistaken for _unwilling_, to participate in economic growth. In this scenario inequality shoots through the roof and that reasonably leads to instability and violence. At a certain point the wealth has to be shared in order to maintain a stable and high-quality society. A pragmatic wealthy person in this scenario should see wealth redistribution as a wise investment, not a cost, seeing as the "let them eat cake" alternative is less desirable if you like to keep your head.
- weberc2 8y ago
  > A pragmatic wealthy person in this scenario should see wealth redistribution as a wise investment, not a cost, seeing as the "let them eat cake" alternative is less desirable if you like to keep your head. This seems like a false dichotomy in that (for the foreseeable future) we have other options, like retraining people whose jobs have been automated away. This is strictly better (read "less invasive" and "more economically efficient") than wealth redistribution programs [^1]. [^1]: To avoid the motte and bailey fallacies that accompany poorly-defined or otherwise ambiguous terms such as "redistribution", I'm referring to the typical redistribution programs which take wealth from one group and give it to another group with no net increase in economic productivity. These are the kinds of programs which are controversial and objectionable.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    Retraining might equalize things enough to prevent violent insurrection. However, if a fair share of profit increases only go to executives/shareholders, then I'm not sure we can train people for jobs high enough up the hierarchy to actually reach a just system.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      It's not really a tractable problem without concretely defining 'fair' and 'just'. It seems like you're driving toward something interesting (if only theoretical); I'd be really interested to hear from an economist.
maxxxxx 8y ago
" The people who receive employment from the steel mill. " I think a lot of people who have employment there don't feel like they are getting benefits. When I look at my company we just got an E-mail how great the company is doing but during my performance review I was told "sorry, no raises or promotions". So I don't feel like I am benefiting from the company doing well.
anonuser123456 8y ago
You benefit from the reduction in the price of steel, or the growth of steel based products. Industries don't just grow in a vacuum.

philipov 8y ago

Because many of those people have the experience of participating in economic growth then being denied the benefits, and so when they see it elsewhere, they assume the same thing is happening to those workers as well.

gooseifer 8y ago

The Federal government taxes the steel mill and the tertiary industries that are able to thrive because that steel mill is generating revenue. You directly benefit from countless federal programs and indirectly benefit from even more.

rukittenme 8y ago
That's really not the point. Replace Ohio with China or consider what percentage of after tax growth you're entitled to.
rhacker 8y ago
It's sad that people still think we benefit from taxes. If people patched their own roads, paid for their own schools, paid for the police, we'd still be far far far richer. Instead we're paying 10-20k PER BOMB. Every time we drop 5 bombs that could have been a freaking decent salary for a local teacher. Instead that money is killing, like 50-100 people. The world has become what it is because of the way we treat other people. People learn from people in power that -that is the way to treat others.
- gooseifer 8y ago
  Getting people to pay for all of those things is what taxes are for. If it was completely voluntary how many people would actually pitch in to pay for all of these services? What about the communities that are unable to afford these services? It’s very easy to imagine that in your scenario that the very wealthy segment themselves off to pay for private services while everyone else suffers.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > If it was completely voluntary how many people would actually pitch in to pay for all of these services? Government is the system where everyone expects to live at everyone elses expense. I ask you, if you believe nobody wants to pay for it, why do you think people want it at all? > What about the communities that are unable to afford these services? Government does not make it affordable. Government does not pay for it: someone pays for it, the government takes a cut, and gives it to someone else.
    - gooseifer 8y ago
      What is your proposition? How should things be run?
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        As local and voluntary as possible, in today's framework.

harimau777 8y ago

I think that the complaint is more that the people who receive employment from the steel mill do not receive a portion of the increased profits. Instead they go only/mostly to the owner of the steel mill. As I understand it, looking at the numbers for the country as a whole is more meant as a way to observe overall trends. I don't think its meant to say that literally everyone across the country should benefit from any gains in any part of the country (or similarly gains in industries that they are not a part of),

rhacker 8y ago

I think the thing that is at odds with this attitude is that more and more prevalently "The people who receive employment from the steel mill." don't actually benefit from 500% growth. Instead they might have 6 additional months of job security with little to no raises. And that job security isn't a favor it's because that's the amount of time those workers are needed to get through whatever contract and not any further. In other words, the absolute maximum profit the steel mill can make. And of course your argument is on the side of the people that risked everything to start a steel mill. So yeah, it's a complex system - but that doesn't mean we have to shit on everyone else.

briffle 8y ago
More common, every other year or so, they will get a 'raise' that management loves to promote, that doesn't cover the cost of living adjustments the last 2 years.
weberc2 8y ago
It's not "shitting on" anyone; it's how (efficient) economics works. You don't earn more money unless you're producing more value. If a steel mill increases its output by way of some new automation, the accounting department and janitorial staff are unlikely to see a wage increase. The folks on the assembly line are also unlikely to see a wage increase because they're not more productive. The people who will be principally rewarded are the people who developed (including investing) the automation. In other words, as I understand it, economic rules aren't arbitrary--it's not like some cabal of mean rich guys is preventing us from flipping the switch that would make everyone obscenely rich (which is distinct from a cabal of mean rich guys _interfering_ with an economy to make themselves wealthy at the expense of the efficiency of the economy).
- TimJYoung 8y ago
  If you pursue "efficiency" to extremes like this, you're going to bump up against political and social realities that are going to ruin your efficiencies in ways that make giving pay increases seem like a no-brainer.

darawk 8y ago

> I'd like to add to this argument. > If Ohio's steel industry grows by 500% who reaps the benefits? Me? The guy writing code in Portland, Oregon? > No... its pretty clear that a specific subset of people receive the benefits No, that's actually incorrect. You do benefit (usually), in the form of cheaper steel prices reducing the cost of many of the goods you buy.

gwbas1c 8y ago

That's a poor generalization. Is steel cheaper as a result of the growth? If so, then you benefit. Did you own stock in the company? Perhaps your 401k grew as a result of the growth?

poulsbohemian 8y ago

>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Maybe that's the real question then - what prevents people from participating in the economic growth? The economy has seen strong growth for about a decade now, yet stock ownership in the broader population remains low. Unemployment is low, but incomes also remain low outside the top 10% of earners. Overall savings across the population is very low, with by some studies approx 36% having _no_ retirement savings. So - I agree with your statement about economic growth not being uniform, but it does lead one to question what's preventing greater participation.

Izkata 8y ago
Forget retirement, something like 20% live paycheck-to-paycheck with no emergency fund and would be in crisis mode with an unexpected $500 bill.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Yes, I know, and I suspect the parent poster knows too.
krapp 8y ago
>but it does lead one to question what's preventing greater participation. It seems as if capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of owners and shareholders. Employees were never intended to participate beyond the means granted them by their wages, and the incentives behind the financial systems with which they could tend to fleece anyone but the wealthy. Somehow we've convinced ourselves that capitalism is supposed to be more egalitarian than it is. I think solutions begin with recognizing that the inequities we see in society are not a flaw in the system, but the system working as intended.

teekert 8y ago

Supposedly these people with increased wealth will be spending more, perhaps also in your sector.

izzydata 8y ago

I agree, but if the steel industry grew 500% then I am willing to bet executives saw 499% of the benefit and all employees remained the same.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

When you drive to another state, why are you entitled to use roads without potholes? You didn't contribute to that.

class_struggle 8y ago

Stuff like this annoys me. The workers in the steel mill aren't receiving the benefits of the 500% growth. it is largely going to the executives and not the workers.

komali2 8y ago

>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Can we use this entitlement argument elsewhere? Would that be fair? So, how would you feel if I restated this as: >I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic benefits, if they don't contribute to the pool of economic benefits Two issues I take with this: 1. Those incapable of contributing, such as the psychologically or physically unwell, must I guess just die 2. I could restate this further as "Returns from entitlement should correlate linearly with input to entitlement," that is, the more taxes in real dollars you pay, the more benefits you should get from the system, which I think is awful for many reasons.

conanbatt 8y ago
I would answer to 1.: It is a very different society, one where the top 90% give to the bottom 10%, to one where the middle 80% take from the top 10%, eat most and give scraps to the bottom 10%. A society that cares for the weak does not need to fund it with taxes, it can subsist on charity. You will see that in practice, always a middle class person takes the money first before it goes to the person that needs it.

billmalarky 8y ago

>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Tangentially related point: The problem occurs when advances in technology make it so the vast majority of humans are literally _unable_, not to be mistaken for _unwilling_, to participate in economic growth. In this scenario inequality shoots through the roof and that reasonably leads to instability and violence. At a certain point the wealth has to be shared in order to maintain a stable and high-quality society. A pragmatic wealthy person in this scenario should see wealth redistribution as a wise investment, not a cost, seeing as the "let them eat cake" alternative is less desirable if you like to keep your head.

weberc2 8y ago
> A pragmatic wealthy person in this scenario should see wealth redistribution as a wise investment, not a cost, seeing as the "let them eat cake" alternative is less desirable if you like to keep your head. This seems like a false dichotomy in that (for the foreseeable future) we have other options, like retraining people whose jobs have been automated away. This is strictly better (read "less invasive" and "more economically efficient") than wealth redistribution programs [^1]. [^1]: To avoid the motte and bailey fallacies that accompany poorly-defined or otherwise ambiguous terms such as "redistribution", I'm referring to the typical redistribution programs which take wealth from one group and give it to another group with no net increase in economic productivity. These are the kinds of programs which are controversial and objectionable.
- harimau777 8y ago
  Retraining might equalize things enough to prevent violent insurrection. However, if a fair share of profit increases only go to executives/shareholders, then I'm not sure we can train people for jobs high enough up the hierarchy to actually reach a just system.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    It's not really a tractable problem without concretely defining 'fair' and 'just'. It seems like you're driving toward something interesting (if only theoretical); I'd be really interested to hear from an economist.

maxxxxx 8y ago

" The people who receive employment from the steel mill. " I think a lot of people who have employment there don't feel like they are getting benefits. When I look at my company we just got an E-mail how great the company is doing but during my performance review I was told "sorry, no raises or promotions". So I don't feel like I am benefiting from the company doing well.

anonuser123456 8y ago

You benefit from the reduction in the price of steel, or the growth of steel based products. Industries don't just grow in a vacuum.