3 ms·

> So I reiterate, that the culprit is slowing productivity growth. You should continue reading the paragraph you cited. Because it continues > but that may no

by esarbe 3y ago

> So I reiterate, that the culprit is slowing productivity growth. You should continue reading the paragraph you cited. Because it continues > but that may not be surprising in view of the enormous economic losses that were precipitated by the financial crises. So, Bosworth does not see power of the unions as the reason for the slowing productivity. He sees it in the financial crisis. Please also see that in Fig. 1 of the article, we see that the goes up and down and up and down, without correlation to any union laws that would explain this; there were no big changes between 2005 an 2014 that would explain the numbers according to your hypothesis. Bosworth doesn't even mention unions. > The argument is [...] Neither of the two articles give your argument credible support. One is a pretty shallow opinion peace pulling numbers out of the air and the other one is a list of anecdotes about what looks very much like graft to me. Not sure what the second one has to do with unions. I think I agree that rent-takers incomes are responsible for reducing the general population's. Social welfare however is not what I have in mind, quite the contrary. > The effective tax rate of high income earners is much higher than that of a typical janitor.. These people have tax lawyers for a reason. W. Buffet even raised that issue in an 2012 interview[1]. It's become so bad, even millionaires are asking to fix the loopholes big as barn doors[2]. > This claim that manufacturing just offshored is unfounded. How devastating offshoring was to US industry is well examined.[3,4] Just 1993-2000 the U.S. economy lost an average of 30.3 million jobs per year. > Corporate earnings growth has slowed significantly since the 1950s A finite world can only allow for finite growth. It's basic physics. Not that that matters; corporate profits are still sky high - and growing higher still. But labor's share is shrinking and shrinking. Again, I cite Bosworth: > he new phenomenon is the decline in labor’s share of income for which we have no satisfactory explanation. And as a possible explanation he refers to the already mentioned causes; reduced bargaining power through the global market and through corporate consolidation, reduced competition between companies. > regulations that impose enormous compliance Bosworth also mentioned regulations as a cause for the reduced share of worker. And you know what? I agree with that. Especially gratuitous regulation that allows regulatory capture or that otherwise reduces competition should be carefully weeded out. > They keep manufacturing from returning. European manufacturing, although also impacted by offshoring, seems stable despite much, much stronger union laws than those of the U.S. Germany especially has very strong unions and is nevertheless considered a manufacturing powerhouse. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett... [2] https://patrioticmillionaires.org/2023/06/22/the-real-reason-we-want-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich/ https://patrioticmillionaires.org/2023/06/22/the-real-reason... [3] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/offshoring-by-the-numbers/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/offshoring-by-the-n... [4] https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/new-assessment-role-offshoring-decline-us-manufacturing-employment https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/new-assessment-role-offshorin...

ETH_start 3y ago
>So, Bosworth does not see power of the unions as the reason for the slowing productivity. Bosworth is referencing the period after 2005, which of course had its productivity affected by the financial crisis. The slowdown since 1973 has other more structural causes. >These people have tax lawyers for a reason. It doesn't change the fact that their effective tax rate is much higher than a typical janitor's. >Just 1993-2000 the U.S. economy lost an average of 30.3 million jobs per year. You're misreading your sources. They say 300,000 - 500,000 jobs per year. And outsourcing was in large part a symptom of the widespread hostility to industry in the wake of its takeover by unions. >A finite world can only allow for finite growth. It's basic physics. Not that that matters; corporate profits are still sky high - and growing higher still. But labor's share is shrinking and shrinking. The primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth is the slowdown in productivity growth. So you blaming a slight decrease in labor's share of income is misplaced. As for corporate profits, of course as long as revenue growth is not negative, new profit records will be reached every year. As for the physical limits of growth: we are nowhere near them. There are orders of magnitude more physical resources that human civilization can harvest for production. The slowdown is most likely due to obviously harmful economic policy, like increasing forced income redistribution to pay into wasteful union run social programs, and letting unions take control of industry through laws mandating that companies engage in collective bargaining with unions to the exclusion of all other parties. >European manufacturing, although also impacted by offshoring, seems stable despite much, much stronger union laws than those of the U.S. European manufacturing growth and global market share has plummetted right alongside the US's. And Europe, due to higher income redistribution through social programs and more labor regulations, has been outperformed by the US. Since 2008 in fact, US nomimal GDP has doubled, while Europe's has stayed stagnant.
- esarbe 3y ago
  > You're misreading your sources. They say 300,000 - 500,000 jobs per year. It seems that this sources is not consistent, so I'll disregard it. Thanks for pointing out this obvious incongruity, I should have noticed that myself. > The primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth is the slowdown in productivity growth > And Europe, due to higher income redistribution through social programs and more labor regulations, > The slowdown is most likely due to obviously harmful economic policy, Again and again you make the same assumptions without having any evidence supporting these claims. If we compare the growth curves of the US and Europe, the growth rates look very much the same, despite having very different labor laws and union strengths [1]. That seems to suggest that labor laws indeed don't have too much of an impact. > It doesn't change the fact that their effective tax rate is much higher than a typical janitor's. Buffet and his millionaire friends have already explained how they and their friends are cheating. Buffet hat a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Has had for years. > As for the physical limits of growth: we are nowhere near them. The practical limits of growth will kick in much earlier than the physical limits. Ever diminishing returns will necessarily reduce growth; when there's not even a path, a street will greatly improve productivity. Once you have a road, a better road will only do so much. You can see that kind of growth slowdown in any developed economy. The Asian tigers are following the same curve as the US and Europe; continuously accelerated growth is impossible. > US nomimal GDP has doubled So what is is now? GDP has doubled, despite the oppressive socialist union laws? I'm certain you realize that something doesn't quite add up with your argument, right? Meanwhile minimal wage has not been increased for 14 years. [1] https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-economy.php https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-econ...

by esarbe 3y ago

ETH_start 3y ago

>So, Bosworth does not see power of the unions as the reason for the slowing productivity. Bosworth is referencing the period after 2005, which of course had its productivity affected by the financial crisis. The slowdown since 1973 has other more structural causes. >These people have tax lawyers for a reason. It doesn't change the fact that their effective tax rate is much higher than a typical janitor's. >Just 1993-2000 the U.S. economy lost an average of 30.3 million jobs per year. You're misreading your sources. They say 300,000 - 500,000 jobs per year. And outsourcing was in large part a symptom of the widespread hostility to industry in the wake of its takeover by unions. >A finite world can only allow for finite growth. It's basic physics. Not that that matters; corporate profits are still sky high - and growing higher still. But labor's share is shrinking and shrinking. The primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth is the slowdown in productivity growth. So you blaming a slight decrease in labor's share of income is misplaced. As for corporate profits, of course as long as revenue growth is not negative, new profit records will be reached every year. As for the physical limits of growth: we are nowhere near them. There are orders of magnitude more physical resources that human civilization can harvest for production. The slowdown is most likely due to obviously harmful economic policy, like increasing forced income redistribution to pay into wasteful union run social programs, and letting unions take control of industry through laws mandating that companies engage in collective bargaining with unions to the exclusion of all other parties. >European manufacturing, although also impacted by offshoring, seems stable despite much, much stronger union laws than those of the U.S. European manufacturing growth and global market share has plummetted right alongside the US's. And Europe, due to higher income redistribution through social programs and more labor regulations, has been outperformed by the US. Since 2008 in fact, US nomimal GDP has doubled, while Europe's has stayed stagnant.

esarbe 3y ago
> You're misreading your sources. They say 300,000 - 500,000 jobs per year. It seems that this sources is not consistent, so I'll disregard it. Thanks for pointing out this obvious incongruity, I should have noticed that myself. > The primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth is the slowdown in productivity growth > And Europe, due to higher income redistribution through social programs and more labor regulations, > The slowdown is most likely due to obviously harmful economic policy, Again and again you make the same assumptions without having any evidence supporting these claims. If we compare the growth curves of the US and Europe, the growth rates look very much the same, despite having very different labor laws and union strengths [1]. That seems to suggest that labor laws indeed don't have too much of an impact. > It doesn't change the fact that their effective tax rate is much higher than a typical janitor's. Buffet and his millionaire friends have already explained how they and their friends are cheating. Buffet hat a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Has had for years. > As for the physical limits of growth: we are nowhere near them. The practical limits of growth will kick in much earlier than the physical limits. Ever diminishing returns will necessarily reduce growth; when there's not even a path, a street will greatly improve productivity. Once you have a road, a better road will only do so much. You can see that kind of growth slowdown in any developed economy. The Asian tigers are following the same curve as the US and Europe; continuously accelerated growth is impossible. > US nomimal GDP has doubled So what is is now? GDP has doubled, despite the oppressive socialist union laws? I'm certain you realize that something doesn't quite add up with your argument, right? Meanwhile minimal wage has not been increased for 14 years. [1] https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-economy.php https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-econ...