4 ms·

You are missing the other half of the equation. If all services just cost more that will just result in inflation. I think you want the cost ratio of services j

You are missing the other half of the equation. If all services just cost more that will just result in inflation. I think you want the cost ratio of services jobs to other jobs to increase. That would mean you would want non-service income to be able to buy less services.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Not all non-service income, just the income of the standard boogey-men, those very loosely defined as the 1%. Basically those whose income is primarily from capital rather than from labour, and other classes of rentiers.
- codyswann 5y ago
  What do you figure those 1% have as actual income?
orwin 5y ago
And a 10% inflation rate would be great. Piketty was wrong you know, in his book, he argues that the capital income increase (compared to labor income) mean that all productivity gains since the 70s were captured by the capital. But he argue that taking the GDP numbers (inflation-adjusted). Because production is hard to mesure with other tools than GDP/GNI. But other economists argues that GDP - especially since QE, but truthfully since the 90s - do not mesure productivity increase, but a mix of productivity and asset inflation (and GDP is only corrected with "regular" inflation). So Piketty was wrong. Capital income not only captured all productivity increases since the 70s, it even ate through labor income in proportion. The only marker that can equalize thing in our capitalist, market-oriented economies is a higher rate of inflation. We should aim for that. We need regular inflation superior than asset inflation.
octokatt 5y ago
Usually you can get the cost ratio of services jobs to other jobs to adjust by increasing the lowest wage, i.e. minimum wage. But… yes. I would like for non-service income (like mine) to be able to buy less services. I grew up poor and made it to the top quintile, and yes, I would like for the gap between where I came from and where I got to slim down more. It would be great if more pressure could hit the top 1%, but if to get there I’m paying, I’m ok with that.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Not all non-service income, just the income of the standard boogey-men, those very loosely defined as the 1%. Basically those whose income is primarily from capital rather than from labour, and other classes of rentiers.

codyswann 5y ago
What do you figure those 1% have as actual income?

orwin 5y ago

And a 10% inflation rate would be great. Piketty was wrong you know, in his book, he argues that the capital income increase (compared to labor income) mean that all productivity gains since the 70s were captured by the capital. But he argue that taking the GDP numbers (inflation-adjusted). Because production is hard to mesure with other tools than GDP/GNI. But other economists argues that GDP - especially since QE, but truthfully since the 90s - do not mesure productivity increase, but a mix of productivity and asset inflation (and GDP is only corrected with "regular" inflation). So Piketty was wrong. Capital income not only captured all productivity increases since the 70s, it even ate through labor income in proportion. The only marker that can equalize thing in our capitalist, market-oriented economies is a higher rate of inflation. We should aim for that. We need regular inflation superior than asset inflation.

octokatt 5y ago

Usually you can get the cost ratio of services jobs to other jobs to adjust by increasing the lowest wage, i.e. minimum wage. But… yes. I would like for non-service income (like mine) to be able to buy less services. I grew up poor and made it to the top quintile, and yes, I would like for the gap between where I came from and where I got to slim down more. It would be great if more pressure could hit the top 1%, but if to get there I’m paying, I’m ok with that.