4 ms·

Fragile, because corporations that have millions or billions in cash flow don't have the kind of savings to keep people staffed and make debt payments. No, we

Fragile, because corporations that have millions or billions in cash flow don't have the kind of savings to keep people staffed and make debt payments. No, we little people are supposed to "save for a rainy day" and flood the stock market with our 401ks while big business gets to grow grow grow, make little to nothing in profit, and bolster stock prices with corporate debt. This isn't just about big business. Small businesses notoriously operate on very thin margins. Though that's not necessarily because of debt, but because what it takes to run a business today takes a considerable amount of overhead. I know that the idea of saving money seems cliche, like some obsolete thing your grandpa might say, but we're going to have to wake up to the fact that if we want to finance everything with debt then we're going to be penalized every 10 years when there's an adjustment or a catastrophe that forces one. The catch 22 there is that using less debt also means less growth, and we've all gotten used to unprecedented amounts of growth.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> No, we little people are supposed to "save for a rainy day" We really aren't. Between government pension plans, unemployment insurance, and all the welfare programs, I would challenge whether this is a real expectation at this point.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  >and all the welfare programs hn right now is a great source of metadata for who to avoid when applying/hiring. i'm scraping all of these covid and economy threads for vile conservative comments and matching to names and making a "red flag" list. @gmail me if you want access to the list.
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    It's pretty despicable to show up in a thread where we are having an honest discussion, tag people as conservative(I think you mean "heretic"), and offer your blacklist to employers. Heck off.
    - throwlaplace 6y ago
      how is it despicable exactly? people that identify themselves explicitly thereby explicitly endorse their comments. what exactly am i doing other than keeping them accountable? edit: lol i remember you - you're already on the list from the last time we argued about lifting covid lockdowns irrespective of casualties
      - my_usernam3 6y ago
        For one, you're expecting others to be held accountable while also hiding behind a throwaway account. Thats hypocritical. Second, you're actively trying to derail someone's career based on a 174 character comment that was far from being considered "vile conservatism". I too disagree with his viewpoint, but damn you're taking this wayyyyyyyy too far. I recommend you engage in open discourse and dialog instead of looking for an enemy? And when I say "open", I mean willing to also change your own opinion.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    I'm a Liberal and not only a Liberal, but a Canadian Liberal, which is more to the left than American Democrats. My mention on Wikipedia as a Liberal candidate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary-Bow#2015_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary-Bow#2015_general_elect... I support welfare programs, it is just that the existence of them makes personal saving less paramount.
    - throwlaplace 6y ago
      >I support welfare programs, it is just that the existence of them makes personal saving less paramount. i can't fathom the sense of this statement. in the united states (i don't know about canada) there are no welfare programs that cover all aspects of a person's wellbeing; there is a patch work of social services that must be navigated deftly so that one might be healthy (medicare/medicaid), sheltered (section 8), and fed (snap). very few people manage to actually qualify because of bureaucratic rigamarole and even outright discriminatory policies (means and drug testing in certain regions). so regardless of where the expectation might originate from, without savings one cannot survive this crisis (or any other).
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        And yet you will find countless examples of republicans/conservatives explaining how people can "live on unemployment", stories about "welfare queens", and accounts of people leading the high life on their (presumably unearned) social security. None of these stories are true in any meaningful sense of that word, but this culture does contribute to the idea that maybe it's no so important to save. Or maybe it doesn't. Either way, Americans don't save enough, neither via personal savings nor via taxation-driven social security systems.
      - alenanand 6y ago
        This is hilarious. You pop into a thread out of nowhere to advertise your Evil Conservative blacklist, and literally the first person you accuse has a Wikipedia cite showing that you're completely wrong. One might think you'd engage in some self-reflection...? Have you no decency, Senator? I think I'll pass on using your blacklist, thanks.
  - dang 6y ago
    You have a long history of treating other people viciously on HN, but for some reason we gave you many more second chances than we usually do. This is beyond the pale and I've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dantheman 6y ago
I'd blame the tax code; it makes no sense for corporations to save money. They should aim for zero every year either by investing in growth or paying it out. With the amount we pay in taxes, the ability to save is sharply limited.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  This attitude is another component in why the economy is so fragile. "It makes no sense for corporations to save money" ... as long as you think that "paying the least amount of taxes possible" is a sensible goal for a corporation. Compared with, say, contributing to the construction of a resilient, humane society in a variety of ways (including paying taxes) and being ready to deal with semi-random catastrophes quite well. Oh, also: the amount we pay in taxes, as a percentage of personal and corporate income, as well as GDP, is at a (near) historical and cross-country-comparative low.
- Antecedent 6y ago
  Doesn’t the personal tax code pretty strongly incentivize saving for individuals? 401ks and IRAs have preferential tax treatment.
neutronicus 6y ago
> don't have the kind of savings to keep people staffed When times are good, corporations are essentially making monthly payments to a bunch of local landlords (or banks) for the service of housing their employees. I do find it a little strange that we didn't try to stick landlords and lenders with more of the bill. It'd be easier for corporations to keep employees staffed if they could reduce their salaries because their rent / mortgage payments were lower.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
One thing I've reflected on a little bit recently ... I don't want to take a TV show as an accurate account of historical reality, but given that "Deadwood" did have quite a bit of research behind it ... when two characters in that story wanted to open a hardware store, they had to buy the land and build the store. How many people who open a retail store these days even thinking about owning the property? Now, it's true that the commercial (retail) real estate "sector" has created a more flexible and dynamic space for retail to operate in. Sign leases for just a year in case the idea doesn't work out etc. etc. But it has also meant (1) a more encouraging environment for retail ideas that are even more likely to fail than the average (2) when business drops (e.g. covid-19), there's still the rent to pay. It is true that in the past, the retail store owner-operator probably didn't own the premises outright, so there's still the mortgage payment when business drops. But that was (then) an arrangement with a bank (often local) who were going to be much more likely to see the mutual benefit of finding a way to not reposess the building. This is just another small contributing factor to the overall fragility.
apta 6y ago
The fact that the modern day economy is based on usury (aka interest) seems not to be brought up by either the left or right, even though eliminating it would provide huge value for everyone (except the few at the top). It's a form of slavery, but it does the job for those at the top of the hierarchy, so it remains the way it is. That, coupled with a backward and extremely intrusive tax system which also benefits the same group of people, and you see why there's vested interest in keeping the status quo. This combination forms the basis for the fragility of the present day economic system.

MattGaiser 6y ago

> No, we little people are supposed to "save for a rainy day" We really aren't. Between government pension plans, unemployment insurance, and all the welfare programs, I would challenge whether this is a real expectation at this point.

throwlaplace 6y ago
>and all the welfare programs hn right now is a great source of metadata for who to avoid when applying/hiring. i'm scraping all of these covid and economy threads for vile conservative comments and matching to names and making a "red flag" list. @gmail me if you want access to the list.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  It's pretty despicable to show up in a thread where we are having an honest discussion, tag people as conservative(I think you mean "heretic"), and offer your blacklist to employers. Heck off.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    how is it despicable exactly? people that identify themselves explicitly thereby explicitly endorse their comments. what exactly am i doing other than keeping them accountable? edit: lol i remember you - you're already on the list from the last time we argued about lifting covid lockdowns irrespective of casualties
    - my_usernam3 6y ago
      For one, you're expecting others to be held accountable while also hiding behind a throwaway account. Thats hypocritical. Second, you're actively trying to derail someone's career based on a 174 character comment that was far from being considered "vile conservatism". I too disagree with his viewpoint, but damn you're taking this wayyyyyyyy too far. I recommend you engage in open discourse and dialog instead of looking for an enemy? And when I say "open", I mean willing to also change your own opinion.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  I'm a Liberal and not only a Liberal, but a Canadian Liberal, which is more to the left than American Democrats. My mention on Wikipedia as a Liberal candidate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary-Bow#2015_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary-Bow#2015_general_elect... I support welfare programs, it is just that the existence of them makes personal saving less paramount.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    >I support welfare programs, it is just that the existence of them makes personal saving less paramount. i can't fathom the sense of this statement. in the united states (i don't know about canada) there are no welfare programs that cover all aspects of a person's wellbeing; there is a patch work of social services that must be navigated deftly so that one might be healthy (medicare/medicaid), sheltered (section 8), and fed (snap). very few people manage to actually qualify because of bureaucratic rigamarole and even outright discriminatory policies (means and drug testing in certain regions). so regardless of where the expectation might originate from, without savings one cannot survive this crisis (or any other).
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      And yet you will find countless examples of republicans/conservatives explaining how people can "live on unemployment", stories about "welfare queens", and accounts of people leading the high life on their (presumably unearned) social security. None of these stories are true in any meaningful sense of that word, but this culture does contribute to the idea that maybe it's no so important to save. Or maybe it doesn't. Either way, Americans don't save enough, neither via personal savings nor via taxation-driven social security systems.
    - alenanand 6y ago
      This is hilarious. You pop into a thread out of nowhere to advertise your Evil Conservative blacklist, and literally the first person you accuse has a Wikipedia cite showing that you're completely wrong. One might think you'd engage in some self-reflection...? Have you no decency, Senator? I think I'll pass on using your blacklist, thanks.
- dang 6y ago
  You have a long history of treating other people viciously on HN, but for some reason we gave you many more second chances than we usually do. This is beyond the pale and I've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dantheman 6y ago

I'd blame the tax code; it makes no sense for corporations to save money. They should aim for zero every year either by investing in growth or paying it out. With the amount we pay in taxes, the ability to save is sharply limited.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
This attitude is another component in why the economy is so fragile. "It makes no sense for corporations to save money" ... as long as you think that "paying the least amount of taxes possible" is a sensible goal for a corporation. Compared with, say, contributing to the construction of a resilient, humane society in a variety of ways (including paying taxes) and being ready to deal with semi-random catastrophes quite well. Oh, also: the amount we pay in taxes, as a percentage of personal and corporate income, as well as GDP, is at a (near) historical and cross-country-comparative low.
Antecedent 6y ago
Doesn’t the personal tax code pretty strongly incentivize saving for individuals? 401ks and IRAs have preferential tax treatment.

neutronicus 6y ago

> don't have the kind of savings to keep people staffed When times are good, corporations are essentially making monthly payments to a bunch of local landlords (or banks) for the service of housing their employees. I do find it a little strange that we didn't try to stick landlords and lenders with more of the bill. It'd be easier for corporations to keep employees staffed if they could reduce their salaries because their rent / mortgage payments were lower.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

One thing I've reflected on a little bit recently ... I don't want to take a TV show as an accurate account of historical reality, but given that "Deadwood" did have quite a bit of research behind it ... when two characters in that story wanted to open a hardware store, they had to buy the land and build the store. How many people who open a retail store these days even thinking about owning the property? Now, it's true that the commercial (retail) real estate "sector" has created a more flexible and dynamic space for retail to operate in. Sign leases for just a year in case the idea doesn't work out etc. etc. But it has also meant (1) a more encouraging environment for retail ideas that are even more likely to fail than the average (2) when business drops (e.g. covid-19), there's still the rent to pay. It is true that in the past, the retail store owner-operator probably didn't own the premises outright, so there's still the mortgage payment when business drops. But that was (then) an arrangement with a bank (often local) who were going to be much more likely to see the mutual benefit of finding a way to not reposess the building. This is just another small contributing factor to the overall fragility.

apta 6y ago

The fact that the modern day economy is based on usury (aka interest) seems not to be brought up by either the left or right, even though eliminating it would provide huge value for everyone (except the few at the top). It's a form of slavery, but it does the job for those at the top of the hierarchy, so it remains the way it is. That, coupled with a backward and extremely intrusive tax system which also benefits the same group of people, and you see why there's vested interest in keeping the status quo. This combination forms the basis for the fragility of the present day economic system.