4 ms·

This isn't mysterious. The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women. 20 trillion in debt for illegal and stupid wars probably didn

This isn't mysterious. The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women. 20 trillion in debt for illegal and stupid wars probably didn't help either, though it does tie in once again with the 1% class.

robertlagrant 5y ago
> The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women What does that mean?
- newaccount74 5y ago
  It means that employees are paid less so more profits go to the shareholders. It's not men vs women, but workers vs owners.
- tsol 5y ago
  Sounds like they're talking about wealth inequality
- jessaustin 5y ago
  The wealthy determine how the rest of us in USA are governed. Inevitably, they decide that they will get more and we will get less. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
  - astrange 5y ago
    That study is false. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      From your link: "The middle class still gets its preferred policies enacted 26 percent of the time even when the rich are opposed." Gee, thanks! Most of this "debunking" rests on the idea that the tiny minority of rich people should have about the same amount of power as the rest of us, so it isn't so terrible that they actually have a fair amount more. That just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, the fact that a few people have a few quibbles with a few minor details doesn't amount to "that study is false".
      - astrange 5y ago
        The important point is that what most often happens is the middle class and rich agree on policies. So "rich person gets policy" is true, but it's not the reason the policy happened. It is surprising that the middle class and rich agree so often. But as I'm sure you know, most Americans don't think of politics in economic class warfare terms, so maybe that's why.
        newaccount74 5y ago
        I think it's because middle class likes to compare themselves to the people at the top rather than the people at the bottom, even though they are closer to the latter. So you have someone who makes 50k a year who has 10k of investments, and they would rather compare themselves to the CEO making millions, rather than someone lower in the org chart who makes 30k a year. They have investments, so they'll approve of tax cuts on dividends, even though the people who profit from these tax cuts are the people who have 100 million invested, not the middle class who might just get a few hundreds in dividends from their investments a year. So even though they are completely dependent on their salary and the whims of their employer, they like to think of themselves as independent upper middle class people and vote accordingly. It's amazing how people will tell themselves stories and vote for policies that are bad for themselves just so they can feel superior to someone else.
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        It's possible they totally disagree with your worldview that the primary way to view the world is by comparing how you're doing with others. Quite a lot of people vote for the system they think will bring the best outcomes for all. Some people think it's by levelling outcomes; others by increasing opportunity. Assuming the increasing opportunity people are doing it to feel superior is likely false, and also likely just a way to feel superior to them.
api 5y ago
> 20 trillion in debt for illegal and stupid wars That's really the elephant in the living room. Perhaps as a society we are poorer because we set fire to trillions in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. For the HN crowd here's a metric: the average seed round is like $2M these days, so Iraq at roughly $3 trillion would be enough to fund 1.5 million startup companies.
- astrange 5y ago
  Increasing the national debt doesn’t decrease private savings, it increases them. The nation is not a household.
  - api 5y ago
    The problem isn’t the debt. The problem is the waste. All the personnel and capital used on those wars was personnel and capital not being invested productively. It was wealth pulled out of the economy and burned, which makes us all poorer. Money is just accounting. The real economy is physical.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Seed rounds are a form of investment, and debt crowds out private investment.
ohwellhere 5y ago
It might be both. See charts on the numbered page 4: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf Women at 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles saw real wage increases from 1979-2019; men saw a decrease at 10th and 50th. (I'm morally opposed to the top 90th percentile's growth at the expense of the bottom. I'm not morally opposed to gender pay equality, which I _think_ is zero sum and results in lower wages for men as it improves.)
ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
Is there an argument that women in the workforce suck money out of the economy? I thought the argument was that their participation in the workplace increases the supply of labor, thus reducing the value of any individual's labor.

robertlagrant 5y ago

> The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women What does that mean?

newaccount74 5y ago
It means that employees are paid less so more profits go to the shareholders. It's not men vs women, but workers vs owners.
tsol 5y ago
Sounds like they're talking about wealth inequality
jessaustin 5y ago
The wealthy determine how the rest of us in USA are governed. Inevitably, they decide that they will get more and we will get less. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- astrange 5y ago
  That study is false. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    From your link: "The middle class still gets its preferred policies enacted 26 percent of the time even when the rich are opposed." Gee, thanks! Most of this "debunking" rests on the idea that the tiny minority of rich people should have about the same amount of power as the rest of us, so it isn't so terrible that they actually have a fair amount more. That just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, the fact that a few people have a few quibbles with a few minor details doesn't amount to "that study is false".
    - astrange 5y ago
      The important point is that what most often happens is the middle class and rich agree on policies. So "rich person gets policy" is true, but it's not the reason the policy happened. It is surprising that the middle class and rich agree so often. But as I'm sure you know, most Americans don't think of politics in economic class warfare terms, so maybe that's why.
      - newaccount74 5y ago
        I think it's because middle class likes to compare themselves to the people at the top rather than the people at the bottom, even though they are closer to the latter. So you have someone who makes 50k a year who has 10k of investments, and they would rather compare themselves to the CEO making millions, rather than someone lower in the org chart who makes 30k a year. They have investments, so they'll approve of tax cuts on dividends, even though the people who profit from these tax cuts are the people who have 100 million invested, not the middle class who might just get a few hundreds in dividends from their investments a year. So even though they are completely dependent on their salary and the whims of their employer, they like to think of themselves as independent upper middle class people and vote accordingly. It's amazing how people will tell themselves stories and vote for policies that are bad for themselves just so they can feel superior to someone else.
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        It's possible they totally disagree with your worldview that the primary way to view the world is by comparing how you're doing with others. Quite a lot of people vote for the system they think will bring the best outcomes for all. Some people think it's by levelling outcomes; others by increasing opportunity. Assuming the increasing opportunity people are doing it to feel superior is likely false, and also likely just a way to feel superior to them.

api 5y ago

> 20 trillion in debt for illegal and stupid wars That's really the elephant in the living room. Perhaps as a society we are poorer because we set fire to trillions in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. For the HN crowd here's a metric: the average seed round is like $2M these days, so Iraq at roughly $3 trillion would be enough to fund 1.5 million startup companies.

astrange 5y ago
Increasing the national debt doesn’t decrease private savings, it increases them. The nation is not a household.
- api 5y ago
  The problem isn’t the debt. The problem is the waste. All the personnel and capital used on those wars was personnel and capital not being invested productively. It was wealth pulled out of the economy and burned, which makes us all poorer. Money is just accounting. The real economy is physical.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Seed rounds are a form of investment, and debt crowds out private investment.

ohwellhere 5y ago

It might be both. See charts on the numbered page 4: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf Women at 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles saw real wage increases from 1979-2019; men saw a decrease at 10th and 50th. (I'm morally opposed to the top 90th percentile's growth at the expense of the bottom. I'm not morally opposed to gender pay equality, which I _think_ is zero sum and results in lower wages for men as it improves.)

ravel-bar-foo 5y ago

Is there an argument that women in the workforce suck money out of the economy? I thought the argument was that their participation in the workplace increases the supply of labor, thus reducing the value of any individual's labor.