3 ms·

> overpaid paper pushers Oh don’t worry, that’s changing.

• jampekka 3y ago
  Yep. Sooner or later capital makes sure that working doesn't pay off.
  • eru 3y ago
    That hasn't happened so far ever. What makes you think it will happen soon?
    • jampekka 3y ago
      Has happened many times before and is happening again right now. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-gr...
      • eru 3y ago
        > The labor share of income in 35 advanced economies fell from around 54 percent in 1980 to 50.5 percent in 2014. 3.5% in 34 years is not exactly something to get all luddite about. Also keep in mind, that it's not the capital share that's expanding at the expense of labour. It's the share that goes to land that's taking from labour. The capital share is relatively stable. (Alas, few apart from the Georgists care about differentiating between land and capital.)
        • jampekka 3y ago
          Land is capital. And the importance of land in economies have lessened quite a bit from the 19th century. And even Henry George wasn't really a Geoist. He criticized all forms of unearned income, and called for e.g. abolition of intellectual property and nationalization of banks.
          • eru 3y ago
            Yes, Henry George had some good ideas, but nobody is perfect. His ideas about the business cycle were also rubbish. The supply of land is fixed. We can make more capital. If you tax land or labour, you get less of them. If you tax land, it's still the same amount. Land is also hard to hide [citation needed], so tax evasion is harder.
    • throwawayqqq11 3y ago
      Also note, that labor income is usually higher taxed than capital income.
      • eru 3y ago
        Yes. And both are wrong. Neither labour nor capital should be taxed, as long as there's still land to be taxed. See Land Value Tax.
        • jampekka 3y ago
          Private capital should not exist. See socialism.
          • eru 3y ago
            Why not? Attempts at socialism haven't worked out so far. They have invariable devolved into 'not real socialism', despite best efforts and noble intentions.
            • jampekka 3y ago
              Socialism is all over. Schools are socialist, socialized healthcare is socialist, and police and military and public roads and social security and libraries etc etc. Also plenty of state owned industry doing just fine. Attempts at capitalism haven't worked out so far. They have invariably devolved into 'crony capitalism' despite ruthless profit maximization and widespread selfishness.
        • throwawayqqq11 3y ago
          Land is capital.
          • jampekka 3y ago
            This does depend on definitions. In classical economics the factors of production were labor, land and capital stock. Notably "land" means any non-man-made resource, probably including legal monopolies like intellectual property, which contemporary neo-Georgists seem to totally ignore. Capital stock means man-made stuff that is used to produce something, e.g. buildings and machines. Marx generalized capital to roughly mean anything that makes money for the owner without them doing work. Neoclassical (the current mainstream) definition is quite close to Marx's. Land is capital.