3 ms·

Arguably American firms have been incredibly competitive since the 1970s; its American labor that hasn’t been. And/or the fruits of globalism have not been fai

Arguably American firms have been incredibly competitive since the 1970s; its American labor that hasn’t been. And/or the fruits of globalism have not been fairly shared. Depending on whom you ask.

andrewjl 6y ago
The fruits of globalism aren't shared equitably amongst labor, post-1970's labor earnings have done exceptionally well for the upper tranches of the labor pyramid. Why are those more competitive than the rest? There are factors like differential productivity gains due to globalization, technology, etc but I'm not convinced. Especially when one takes Baumol's cost disease into account. There was a change in during the 1970s, but I don't believe globalism was it. The surprising thing about the current era is just how little wealth is inherited and how much has been largely generated during the owner's lifetime, in many cases due to labor and receiving compensation in the form of stock. The vast inheritances we read about from the 19th century aren't there this time, barring a few exceptions. Thomas Piketty wrote about this in Capital.
- danielscrubs 6y ago
  https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1 https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-st... What do you think about that? Did they make any errors?
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    Labor in the top 1% is still labor was my point. I never argued that inequality doesn't exist or didn't get worse. I just think the capital vs labor rhetoric is a distraction. Edit: Also, from the link, this is very fishy to me. You could argue the medical benefits they exclude aren't meaningful because of healthcare inflation not being linked to better health outcomes. You can't make that argument for capital gains. It's likely not be meaningful because there are indeed severe inequalities among Americans in capital assets holdings, it is still an omission however. > And it takes into account capital gains but, due to certain technical constraints, only for those above the 90th percentile.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      "Labor in the top 1% is still labor" I have an issue with this. By some definition, of course. But there is still something very different about the kind of labor which goes on there. Class, opportunity, connections, access to capital, and access to political influence further entrenching their position. It's almost like the nobility of yore. I find pointing to the 1% labor as some kind of redeeming quality of the system, is instead a distraction from capital vs labor. For the regular labor to have a chance to enter the top 1% of labor, is just as much of a pipe dream as them falling into Big Capital.
      - ericmay 6y ago
        Is a family physician labor, or a capitalist? I think that’s kind of what the OP you responded to was getting at. I know professors at large state universities making $100,000+ in medium to low cost of living locations. Some make even more. They aren’t 1% but they might be top 10%. I guess what’s piqued my interest here is, at what point do we consider labor to be labor? If you get a nice UAW job for 30 years and plow money into the market, are you not a capitalist? Is a surgeon not labor since he or she may not own the hospital? Sure they may make $700,000/year, but... aren’t they working for a living? The Meritocracy Trap is a great book I’d recommend that’s related to this question/issue. Wealth and the bourgeoisie used to just hang out all day and go for walks in the park. Now they work 120 hours/week.
        andrewjl 6y ago
        These are great examples, here's another good read on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-free-time-paradox-in-america/499826/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-fre... A salient quote: 'Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic. As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”'
      - andrewjl 6y ago

Arguably American firms have been incredibly competitive since the 1970s; its American labor that hasn’t been. And/or the fruits of globalism have not been fairly shared. Depending on whom you ask.

andrewjl 6y ago

The fruits of globalism aren't shared equitably amongst labor, post-1970's labor earnings have done exceptionally well for the upper tranches of the labor pyramid. Why are those more competitive than the rest? There are factors like differential productivity gains due to globalization, technology, etc but I'm not convinced. Especially when one takes Baumol's cost disease into account. There was a change in during the 1970s, but I don't believe globalism was it. The surprising thing about the current era is just how little wealth is inherited and how much has been largely generated during the owner's lifetime, in many cases due to labor and receiving compensation in the form of stock. The vast inheritances we read about from the 19th century aren't there this time, barring a few exceptions. Thomas Piketty wrote about this in Capital.

danielscrubs 6y ago
https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1 https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-st... What do you think about that? Did they make any errors?
- andrewjl 6y ago
  Labor in the top 1% is still labor was my point. I never argued that inequality doesn't exist or didn't get worse. I just think the capital vs labor rhetoric is a distraction. Edit: Also, from the link, this is very fishy to me. You could argue the medical benefits they exclude aren't meaningful because of healthcare inflation not being linked to better health outcomes. You can't make that argument for capital gains. It's likely not be meaningful because there are indeed severe inequalities among Americans in capital assets holdings, it is still an omission however. > And it takes into account capital gains but, due to certain technical constraints, only for those above the 90th percentile.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    "Labor in the top 1% is still labor" I have an issue with this. By some definition, of course. But there is still something very different about the kind of labor which goes on there. Class, opportunity, connections, access to capital, and access to political influence further entrenching their position. It's almost like the nobility of yore. I find pointing to the 1% labor as some kind of redeeming quality of the system, is instead a distraction from capital vs labor. For the regular labor to have a chance to enter the top 1% of labor, is just as much of a pipe dream as them falling into Big Capital.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      Is a family physician labor, or a capitalist? I think that’s kind of what the OP you responded to was getting at. I know professors at large state universities making $100,000+ in medium to low cost of living locations. Some make even more. They aren’t 1% but they might be top 10%. I guess what’s piqued my interest here is, at what point do we consider labor to be labor? If you get a nice UAW job for 30 years and plow money into the market, are you not a capitalist? Is a surgeon not labor since he or she may not own the hospital? Sure they may make $700,000/year, but... aren’t they working for a living? The Meritocracy Trap is a great book I’d recommend that’s related to this question/issue. Wealth and the bourgeoisie used to just hang out all day and go for walks in the park. Now they work 120 hours/week.
      - andrewjl 6y ago
        These are great examples, here's another good read on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-free-time-paradox-in-america/499826/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-fre... A salient quote: 'Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic. As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”'
    - andrewjl 6y ago