7 ms·

Fine, go back 20, 30, 60 years. Practically take your pick. If you look at say federal transfer payments as percent GDP they were way lower. https://fred.stl

Fine, go back 20, 30, 60 years. Practically take your pick. If you look at say federal transfer payments as percent GDP they were way lower. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=jU5N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=jU5N And we all know anyone talking about the standard of the bottom is looking exactly at transfer payments. That's how those at the bottom survive. We shouldn't try to trick the reader by saying "I'm not talking transfer payments."

Aloha 4y ago
Right, but again, I'm not talking transfer payments, or forced sharing, if I'd meant to speak to transfer payments, I would have said transfer payments, not 'shared prosperity'.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  How would you define "shared prosperity" then? How would we compare it to some other time or place?
  - Aloha 4y ago
    More good jobs for everyone. Largely, in my adult life, I've seen management and shareholders pots grow, and labor stay the same. When the pie grows everyone ought to get a little bigger piece of it. Meanwhile, rent, price of a used or new car, college education, homeownership and medical costs have grown unabated - and generally faster than inflation.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
    Profit sharing is probably the term we’re looking for here.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      So corporations doing share buybacks and dividends? Something else? Is there a real number you're looking at in order to do a comparison, or just labeling some vague idea?
      - piva00 4y ago
        Share buybacks and dividends are profit sharing for shareholders, not workers... A shareholder of a public company has done nothing for the company to generate value, even more when buying the paper from a previous shareholder and so not contributing to capitalise the enterprise. Apart from helping to set pricing in the market, what exactly does a shareholder in the open market brings of value-generation to a company? Nothing. And they get dividends while most workers depend on the benesse of a company sharing bonuses and so on.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        How do share buybacks equal profit sharing with employees? The employees are the ones doing the work, pay them before lecherous shareholders.
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        They don't, I'm trying to get a comparable number. "profit sharing" is too vague a term to compare two groups (across time or geography) with any credibility. If we are going to compare on an axis, we need to first have a defined axis, otherwise it's just an opinion. For instance, GGP and you both clarified things with two different definitions for "shared prosperity".
        Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        You’re splitting hairs here under the guise of data centrism. By virtually every metric shareholders are continuously improving their lives while workers have not. Obviously the 0.01-10% of the population that comprises shareholders with voting rights or majority holdings is a smaller cohort but when they improve their lot at the expense of everyone else we’re in a tyranny of the minority and doing nothing but argue is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs.
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        The premise of this thread is: > Something is wrong with the economy, not just in the UK, but in America and probably a bunch of other countries. Where is the prosperity, if its there, why is it not more widely shared? is it a single cause, or is the cause manifold? I'm trying to find basis for the part that references America, other than a gut feeling. If not transfer payments, GDP growth, real wage growth, then what? If everything we can measure says things are generally improving, then why the feeling that prosperity isn't happening? Your response here tells me prosperity is pretty widespread as there are lot f shareholders in the US.

Aloha 4y ago

Right, but again, I'm not talking transfer payments, or forced sharing, if I'd meant to speak to transfer payments, I would have said transfer payments, not 'shared prosperity'.

BobbyJo 4y ago
How would you define "shared prosperity" then? How would we compare it to some other time or place?
- Aloha 4y ago
  More good jobs for everyone. Largely, in my adult life, I've seen management and shareholders pots grow, and labor stay the same. When the pie grows everyone ought to get a little bigger piece of it. Meanwhile, rent, price of a used or new car, college education, homeownership and medical costs have grown unabated - and generally faster than inflation.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  Profit sharing is probably the term we’re looking for here.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    So corporations doing share buybacks and dividends? Something else? Is there a real number you're looking at in order to do a comparison, or just labeling some vague idea?
    - piva00 4y ago
      Share buybacks and dividends are profit sharing for shareholders, not workers... A shareholder of a public company has done nothing for the company to generate value, even more when buying the paper from a previous shareholder and so not contributing to capitalise the enterprise. Apart from helping to set pricing in the market, what exactly does a shareholder in the open market brings of value-generation to a company? Nothing. And they get dividends while most workers depend on the benesse of a company sharing bonuses and so on.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
      How do share buybacks equal profit sharing with employees? The employees are the ones doing the work, pay them before lecherous shareholders.
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        They don't, I'm trying to get a comparable number. "profit sharing" is too vague a term to compare two groups (across time or geography) with any credibility. If we are going to compare on an axis, we need to first have a defined axis, otherwise it's just an opinion. For instance, GGP and you both clarified things with two different definitions for "shared prosperity".
        Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        You’re splitting hairs here under the guise of data centrism. By virtually every metric shareholders are continuously improving their lives while workers have not. Obviously the 0.01-10% of the population that comprises shareholders with voting rights or majority holdings is a smaller cohort but when they improve their lot at the expense of everyone else we’re in a tyranny of the minority and doing nothing but argue is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs.
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        The premise of this thread is: > Something is wrong with the economy, not just in the UK, but in America and probably a bunch of other countries. Where is the prosperity, if its there, why is it not more widely shared? is it a single cause, or is the cause manifold? I'm trying to find basis for the part that references America, other than a gut feeling. If not transfer payments, GDP growth, real wage growth, then what? If everything we can measure says things are generally improving, then why the feeling that prosperity isn't happening? Your response here tells me prosperity is pretty widespread as there are lot f shareholders in the US.