3 ms·

'We are essentially in a new Gilded Age'

24 points by ummonk 3y ago

zoenolan 3y ago
Non-paywalled version https://finance.yahoo.com/news/essentially-gilded-age-workers-laid-203615724.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/essentially-gilded-age-worker...
- bhawks 3y ago
  The irony
  - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
    [dead]
bhawks 3y ago
It would be a net benefit to employees, customers, industry and society to break up FAANGs and other multi hundred billion dollar companies. These entities struggle to innovate past a certain size. That'd be fine by itself but their enormous size ends up suppressing competition as well. Internally these organizations are rife with politics - brought on by players who've realized that it is much easier to succeed via intrigue than meaningfully improving the business of a company that makes over 50 billion a quarter. Unfortunately our political system is at an all time low and having a few too big to fail entities is a much more attractive scenario for our leaders then hundreds of smaller and more vibrant companies.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Also stop them from buying other companies. This probably also would require some type of working anti-dumping legislation. Where prices can't be lower than actual costs. Or at least time which that is allowed such be relatively short.
thegrim000 3y ago
The "study" the article is based on is pretty laughable. It's nearly 100 pages of nothing but corpo-DEI-jargon. They never actually include any of the data that they're analyzing, they conveniently just "summarize" what we should think about the data. The few graphs that are included don't label all or any of the axes. Nearly 100 pages and no hard data. There's nothing scientific about this, it's just typical social propaganda / class warfare propaganda.
- hasty_pudding 3y ago
  Youre right. Theres zero data. As much as I can see the skyrocketing inequality in the USA this aint it. Its a click bait article sourced on a click bait report. The ironic part is that in one of the two charts they present shows that during the Biden administration, (who claims to support all the causes espoused in this paper), since 2020 inequality has skyrocketed at a rate never seen before. https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/Corporate_Inequality_Framework.pdf https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/Corporate...
- shmageggy 3y ago
  Are you looking at the right report? The one linked, "How do the largest US corporations contribute to inequality?: Oxfam's Corporate Inequality Framework" [1] has labeled axes, includes a sizable appendix with links to data sources, and covers much more than DEI topics, which are only a subset of one of four pillars ("People"), which also covers workplace conditions, human rights, etc. The other pillars being "Power", "Profits", and "Planet". [1] https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/corporate-inequality-footprint/ https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/c...
Phiwise_ 3y ago
If only: >Between 1870 and 1900 [1], America’s inflation-adjusted gross national product expanded by an unprecedented 233%. Though the population nearly doubled, real per capita GNP surged by 90%. Real wages of nonfarm employees grew by 53%, and life’s staples, such as food, clothing and shelter, became more plentiful and much cheaper. Food prices plummeted by 63% and the cost of textiles, fuel and home furnishings fell by 70%, 65% and 70%, respectively. The illiteracy rate fell by 46% and life expectancy rose 12.5%. Infant mortality declined by 17%. ... Had the Gilded Age suffered from monopolistic exploitation, as critics claim, output would have fallen and prices would have risen in the monopolized industries. In a 1985 study, economist Thomas DiLorenzo tested that hypothesis for steel, petroleum, railroads and other industries accused of being monopolistic during the debate on the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. He found that output in those industries actually increased by an average of 175% from 1880-90—seven times the growth rate of real GNP. On average, prices in the ostensibly monopolized industries fell three times as fast as the consumer price index. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/h...
- hasty_pudding 3y ago
  So today is much worse
  - Phiwise_ 3y ago
    Of course not. We have so many more regulations and social programs today than we did in 1890. The federal budget per person absolutely dwarfs it today!

24 points by ummonk 3y ago

Non-paywalled version https://finance.yahoo.com/news/essentially-gilded-age-workers-laid-203615724.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/essentially-gilded-age-worker...

bhawks 3y ago
The irony
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago
  [dead]

bhawks 3y ago

It would be a net benefit to employees, customers, industry and society to break up FAANGs and other multi hundred billion dollar companies. These entities struggle to innovate past a certain size. That'd be fine by itself but their enormous size ends up suppressing competition as well. Internally these organizations are rife with politics - brought on by players who've realized that it is much easier to succeed via intrigue than meaningfully improving the business of a company that makes over 50 billion a quarter. Unfortunately our political system is at an all time low and having a few too big to fail entities is a much more attractive scenario for our leaders then hundreds of smaller and more vibrant companies.

Ekaros 3y ago
Also stop them from buying other companies. This probably also would require some type of working anti-dumping legislation. Where prices can't be lower than actual costs. Or at least time which that is allowed such be relatively short.

thegrim000 3y ago

The "study" the article is based on is pretty laughable. It's nearly 100 pages of nothing but corpo-DEI-jargon. They never actually include any of the data that they're analyzing, they conveniently just "summarize" what we should think about the data. The few graphs that are included don't label all or any of the axes. Nearly 100 pages and no hard data. There's nothing scientific about this, it's just typical social propaganda / class warfare propaganda.

hasty_pudding 3y ago
Youre right. Theres zero data. As much as I can see the skyrocketing inequality in the USA this aint it. Its a click bait article sourced on a click bait report. The ironic part is that in one of the two charts they present shows that during the Biden administration, (who claims to support all the causes espoused in this paper), since 2020 inequality has skyrocketed at a rate never seen before. https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/Corporate_Inequality_Framework.pdf https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/Corporate...
shmageggy 3y ago
Are you looking at the right report? The one linked, "How do the largest US corporations contribute to inequality?: Oxfam's Corporate Inequality Framework" [1] has labeled axes, includes a sizable appendix with links to data sources, and covers much more than DEI topics, which are only a subset of one of four pillars ("People"), which also covers workplace conditions, human rights, etc. The other pillars being "Power", "Profits", and "Planet". [1] https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/corporate-inequality-footprint/ https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/c...

Phiwise_ 3y ago

If only: >Between 1870 and 1900 [1], America’s inflation-adjusted gross national product expanded by an unprecedented 233%. Though the population nearly doubled, real per capita GNP surged by 90%. Real wages of nonfarm employees grew by 53%, and life’s staples, such as food, clothing and shelter, became more plentiful and much cheaper. Food prices plummeted by 63% and the cost of textiles, fuel and home furnishings fell by 70%, 65% and 70%, respectively. The illiteracy rate fell by 46% and life expectancy rose 12.5%. Infant mortality declined by 17%. ... Had the Gilded Age suffered from monopolistic exploitation, as critics claim, output would have fallen and prices would have risen in the monopolized industries. In a 1985 study, economist Thomas DiLorenzo tested that hypothesis for steel, petroleum, railroads and other industries accused of being monopolistic during the debate on the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. He found that output in those industries actually increased by an average of 175% from 1880-90—seven times the growth rate of real GNP. On average, prices in the ostensibly monopolized industries fell three times as fast as the consumer price index. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/h...

hasty_pudding 3y ago
So today is much worse
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  Of course not. We have so many more regulations and social programs today than we did in 1890. The federal budget per person absolutely dwarfs it today!