7 ms·

The last sentence really hits the nail on the head. Just to add to that, during the 2008 recession I saw my portfolio swing pretty wildly going negative one day

The last sentence really hits the nail on the head. Just to add to that, during the 2008 recession I saw my portfolio swing pretty wildly going negative one day and positive another but the amount was more than I made that day or maybe even that week. It was then it dawned on me, American capitalism rewards ownership, not labor nor time devoted to a task. Those changes in my net worth would have happened regardless of if I worked or took the day off. Time and labor can get you to ownership but that's not guaranteed nor probable in some fields. I don't want our country to discourage property ownership and accumulation of wealth but the paths leading to that from working hard seems increasingly fewer and narrower.

abacadaba 7y ago
aka, capitalism
rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
This comment shouldn’t have been downvoted because it’s completely accurate, and provably so: tax rates for earnings on capital are by and large less than earnings on labor. Warren Buffett has complained for years that he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. The system we have rewards trust fund babies, and punishes hard working people.
- droithomme 7y ago
  An alternative view is that it rewards investment in the economy.
  - rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
    Work is an investment the economy. Hell, raising kids and taking care of disabled/elderly people is an investment in the economy too. Those folks and their caretakers are consumers just as much as you and me. Why does there need to be a privileged reward to invest? Everyone and their dog knows if you keep your money stuffed in your mattress it’ll lose value over time from inflation, and who doesn’t want to have a nest egg to retire on? Nobody needs an additional incentive to invest their capital beyond the bare bones basics of personal finance.
- ridgeguy 7y ago
  See also Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century. TLDR: RoI (capital) > RoI (labor), with the expected consequences.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    Plenty of good subsequent research has shown this to be not supported. Go to google scholar and start looking through Econ papers citing Piketty.
    - ridgeguy 7y ago
      Would you give me a link or two to start? I get that Piketty's work isn't without controversy or criticism. Summers and others have criticized it, but their critiques haven't seemed very strong. One article [1] (which discusses Piketty's shortcomings) claims the biggest reaction to Piketty is silence: "But perhaps the greatest rebuke of Piketty to be found among academic economics is not contained in any of these overt or veiled attacks on his scholarship and interpretation, but rather in the deafening silence that greets it, as well as inequality in general, in broad swathes of the field—even to this day." ... "The economics elite, it seems, answered by stonewalling Capital in the Twenty-First Century, so it would not have the impact on economics research agendas that it merits." Anyway, it's not clear to me that Piketty's fundamental thesis is wrong. Happy to follow a link or two, thank you. [1] http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/marshall-steinbaum-why-are-economists-giving-piketty-cold-shoulder http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/marshall-steinbaum-... edited for a typo
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        Even if it wasn’t wrong in the past, it can certainly be wrong going forward. With all the governments printing money to cause asset prices to inflate, of course ROI of capital will be > ROI of labor, since price increases for labor will always lag price increases of capital.
        dnautics 7y ago
RhysU 7y ago
> American capitalism rewards ownership, not labor nor time devoted to a task. It's in the name, after all. One performs labor to (ideally) incrementally increase ownership. The concept thrives in the public mind as go-pay-off-a-house but (ideally) would also stick as go-buy-some-equities too.
- journalctl 7y ago
  One performs labor to enrich the bourgeoisie. The only way anyone was able to “work hard” to increase any kind of ownership was through supportive government after WWII. It’s no coincidence that the middle class is shrinking and wealth is being accumulated in fewer and fewer hands.
journalctl 7y ago
Indeed, capitalism rewards those who own the means of production at the expense of the people who labor to support it. A lot has been written about this.

abacadaba 7y ago

aka, capitalism

rm_-rf_slash 7y ago

This comment shouldn’t have been downvoted because it’s completely accurate, and provably so: tax rates for earnings on capital are by and large less than earnings on labor. Warren Buffett has complained for years that he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. The system we have rewards trust fund babies, and punishes hard working people.

droithomme 7y ago
An alternative view is that it rewards investment in the economy.
- rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
  Work is an investment the economy. Hell, raising kids and taking care of disabled/elderly people is an investment in the economy too. Those folks and their caretakers are consumers just as much as you and me. Why does there need to be a privileged reward to invest? Everyone and their dog knows if you keep your money stuffed in your mattress it’ll lose value over time from inflation, and who doesn’t want to have a nest egg to retire on? Nobody needs an additional incentive to invest their capital beyond the bare bones basics of personal finance.
ridgeguy 7y ago
See also Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century. TLDR: RoI (capital) > RoI (labor), with the expected consequences.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  Plenty of good subsequent research has shown this to be not supported. Go to google scholar and start looking through Econ papers citing Piketty.
  - ridgeguy 7y ago
    Would you give me a link or two to start? I get that Piketty's work isn't without controversy or criticism. Summers and others have criticized it, but their critiques haven't seemed very strong. One article [1] (which discusses Piketty's shortcomings) claims the biggest reaction to Piketty is silence: "But perhaps the greatest rebuke of Piketty to be found among academic economics is not contained in any of these overt or veiled attacks on his scholarship and interpretation, but rather in the deafening silence that greets it, as well as inequality in general, in broad swathes of the field—even to this day." ... "The economics elite, it seems, answered by stonewalling Capital in the Twenty-First Century, so it would not have the impact on economics research agendas that it merits." Anyway, it's not clear to me that Piketty's fundamental thesis is wrong. Happy to follow a link or two, thank you. [1] http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/marshall-steinbaum-why-are-economists-giving-piketty-cold-shoulder http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/marshall-steinbaum-... edited for a typo
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Even if it wasn’t wrong in the past, it can certainly be wrong going forward. With all the governments printing money to cause asset prices to inflate, of course ROI of capital will be > ROI of labor, since price increases for labor will always lag price increases of capital.
      - dnautics 7y ago

RhysU 7y ago

> American capitalism rewards ownership, not labor nor time devoted to a task. It's in the name, after all. One performs labor to (ideally) incrementally increase ownership. The concept thrives in the public mind as go-pay-off-a-house but (ideally) would also stick as go-buy-some-equities too.

journalctl 7y ago
One performs labor to enrich the bourgeoisie. The only way anyone was able to “work hard” to increase any kind of ownership was through supportive government after WWII. It’s no coincidence that the middle class is shrinking and wealth is being accumulated in fewer and fewer hands.

journalctl 7y ago

Indeed, capitalism rewards those who own the means of production at the expense of the people who labor to support it. A lot has been written about this.