6 ms·

And maybe it's the richest 10% who have a subscription to the WSJ and can afford to read this article... It's paywalled and it looks like the WSJ is blocking

by slwvx 2y ago

And maybe it's the richest 10% who have a subscription to the WSJ and can afford to read this article... It's paywalled and it looks like the WSJ is blocking archive tools. The subtitle says "The highest-earning 10% of Americans have increased their spending far beyond inflation. Everyone else hasn’t." The underlying assumption is that increased spending powers the economy. Low income people are much more likely to spend an extra dollar that they get (see the top-left figure on p 50 of [1]). So, what should we do? Do redistribution down to the low-income people, who will spend it, and that consumption will end up in the pockets of high-income people in the form of increased share price of assets held by high income people. Sure, we could do too much redistribution, but the US would benefit from more. [1] https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue95/Roth95.pdf https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue95/Roth95.pdf

quantified 2y ago
The bigger we grow the pie, the bigger the disparity between top and bottom, because those at the top of it have capture most of the gains. So the only ones with an interest in growing the economy are the top few percent. Everyone else turns out to be at their relative best with the current size, or figuring out how to take away mismatch.
- robocat 2y ago
  > because those at the top of it have capture most of the gains Only if you ignore consumer surplus. It's the mistake everyone makes. Consumer surplus could easily be multiple times the amount of revenue of tech companies. Consumer value to "those at the bottom" almost by definition exceeds the amount they spend - the question is by how much? From the top tech stocks I definitely use an iPhone (AAPL), YouTube and Gmail (GOOGL), DuckDuckGo (MSFT), and a tiny tiny amount of WhatsApp (META). The value to me would easily be many thousands per year, yet I only pay hundreds per year. So I would guess my personal consumer surplus is easily greater than 10x my spending. My business depends on other tech companies (the value for which would be on top of my figure). I don't know what tech stocks I use indirectly. My sister has Starlink (because she's rural). Disclosure: Much less than 10% of my total assets are retirement savings in US shares: AMD (bet against Intel), BRK.B (hedging market), BKNG (bet for them because I've used them and against AIRBNB which I've had poor experiences), MA (US exposure and maybe because they've been marketing me well recently - but I'm not really sure why I've chosen them). It does get a bit more tricky to guess at producer surplus (maybe approximated by profits?). Do you happen to depend on any US technology?
  - quantified 2y ago
    Those have value, sure. We exchanging here are in the upper percentages already. I use US-based tech, and it's cool. You are talking about technical advances that lower the price of services and enable the production of goods, all well and good. Can you explain how those close the gap? The wealthiest enjoy those just as much as the rest of us, while their accumulated control of resources is greater than the accumulated control of resources for the less wealthy. Real wages have declined for most while all the goodnesses you describe have been introduced.
    - robocat 2y ago
      > The wealthiest enjoy those just as much as the rest of us You are thinking about it the wrong way around. The less wealthy get to enjoy many things as much as the most wealthy. Can the ultra-wealthy get better iPhones, iPhone Apps, gaming consoles or games? Movies? Can they get better friends? The ultra-wealthy might get 10% longer life (mostly due to preventative measures available to all but they get better advice; somewhat due to better healthcare). There's a lot in modern society that the most wealthy get little improvement over what the middle class get. The very wealthy can pay for improvements (better ping time, better training, better live seats, more choice). Many investments are available to the hoi polloi e.g. stock market on Robinhood. But often not private shares. Crypto is available to virtually everyone equally (a wild ride). In the past only the wealthy could enjoy the intellectual output of civilisation: music, theatre, art, science, even books for a while. Now the best works are often available to even the poorest in the world (pirating is cheap). The areas I think where the wealthy have advantages are: 1: avoiding time wastes, 2: spending their time however they choose, 2: customized services provided by people, 3: complex status games (owning a football club), 4: privacy, 5: private jets. I'm not part of the set so I'm not particularly sure. Elon rabbiting on about playing a game demonstrates that he isn't much better off for that particular measure than some poor basement dwelling cheating gamer. There are human areas where they get little marginal improvement over the middle class. Bad taste is difficult to fix. Wealthy status symbols don't help much, and often they want popular status symbols available to all. And it seems to me the wealthy proportional waste their money on their status games as much as anyone else. Superyachts? Property overcapitalisation? In-game diamonds or skins? The most important status symbol is association with high status individuals. There are many elite (regardless of their wealth or political status) that would be shunned by many celebrities. Personally I think having more money would mostly give me better booby prizes. I'm not chasing more because I have enough to do many human things that matter to me. In New Zealand my friends with less money don't have radically worse lives: they travel but travel less, they eat out but much less often, they waste more time dealing with financial issues. The working friends have to spend time working but they often seem to get heaps of personal satisfaction from their work. Some friends don't work (retired, jobless, sickness beneficiaries) and they mostly spend their time on whatever they want but perhaps can't afford enough hobby/sports supplies. The wealthy tech elite fawning over Trump publically demonstrates that the US government still has power over them. We're not yet ruled by those with the most money. I hope the US pulls finger and gets their government working more for the common good. It would be nice if it was the common world good (from the outside the US seems to trend towards sociopathic levels of selfish behavior - sorry for the label misuse).
JojoFatsani 2y ago
How are journalists to get out of the lower earnings percentile if not paid by their employers?

by slwvx 2y ago

quantified 2y ago

The bigger we grow the pie, the bigger the disparity between top and bottom, because those at the top of it have capture most of the gains. So the only ones with an interest in growing the economy are the top few percent. Everyone else turns out to be at their relative best with the current size, or figuring out how to take away mismatch.

robocat 2y ago
> because those at the top of it have capture most of the gains Only if you ignore consumer surplus. It's the mistake everyone makes. Consumer surplus could easily be multiple times the amount of revenue of tech companies. Consumer value to "those at the bottom" almost by definition exceeds the amount they spend - the question is by how much? From the top tech stocks I definitely use an iPhone (AAPL), YouTube and Gmail (GOOGL), DuckDuckGo (MSFT), and a tiny tiny amount of WhatsApp (META). The value to me would easily be many thousands per year, yet I only pay hundreds per year. So I would guess my personal consumer surplus is easily greater than 10x my spending. My business depends on other tech companies (the value for which would be on top of my figure). I don't know what tech stocks I use indirectly. My sister has Starlink (because she's rural). Disclosure: Much less than 10% of my total assets are retirement savings in US shares: AMD (bet against Intel), BRK.B (hedging market), BKNG (bet for them because I've used them and against AIRBNB which I've had poor experiences), MA (US exposure and maybe because they've been marketing me well recently - but I'm not really sure why I've chosen them). It does get a bit more tricky to guess at producer surplus (maybe approximated by profits?). Do you happen to depend on any US technology?
- quantified 2y ago
  Those have value, sure. We exchanging here are in the upper percentages already. I use US-based tech, and it's cool. You are talking about technical advances that lower the price of services and enable the production of goods, all well and good. Can you explain how those close the gap? The wealthiest enjoy those just as much as the rest of us, while their accumulated control of resources is greater than the accumulated control of resources for the less wealthy. Real wages have declined for most while all the goodnesses you describe have been introduced.
  - robocat 2y ago
    > The wealthiest enjoy those just as much as the rest of us You are thinking about it the wrong way around. The less wealthy get to enjoy many things as much as the most wealthy. Can the ultra-wealthy get better iPhones, iPhone Apps, gaming consoles or games? Movies? Can they get better friends? The ultra-wealthy might get 10% longer life (mostly due to preventative measures available to all but they get better advice; somewhat due to better healthcare). There's a lot in modern society that the most wealthy get little improvement over what the middle class get. The very wealthy can pay for improvements (better ping time, better training, better live seats, more choice). Many investments are available to the hoi polloi e.g. stock market on Robinhood. But often not private shares. Crypto is available to virtually everyone equally (a wild ride). In the past only the wealthy could enjoy the intellectual output of civilisation: music, theatre, art, science, even books for a while. Now the best works are often available to even the poorest in the world (pirating is cheap). The areas I think where the wealthy have advantages are: 1: avoiding time wastes, 2: spending their time however they choose, 2: customized services provided by people, 3: complex status games (owning a football club), 4: privacy, 5: private jets. I'm not part of the set so I'm not particularly sure. Elon rabbiting on about playing a game demonstrates that he isn't much better off for that particular measure than some poor basement dwelling cheating gamer. There are human areas where they get little marginal improvement over the middle class. Bad taste is difficult to fix. Wealthy status symbols don't help much, and often they want popular status symbols available to all. And it seems to me the wealthy proportional waste their money on their status games as much as anyone else. Superyachts? Property overcapitalisation? In-game diamonds or skins? The most important status symbol is association with high status individuals. There are many elite (regardless of their wealth or political status) that would be shunned by many celebrities. Personally I think having more money would mostly give me better booby prizes. I'm not chasing more because I have enough to do many human things that matter to me. In New Zealand my friends with less money don't have radically worse lives: they travel but travel less, they eat out but much less often, they waste more time dealing with financial issues. The working friends have to spend time working but they often seem to get heaps of personal satisfaction from their work. Some friends don't work (retired, jobless, sickness beneficiaries) and they mostly spend their time on whatever they want but perhaps can't afford enough hobby/sports supplies. The wealthy tech elite fawning over Trump publically demonstrates that the US government still has power over them. We're not yet ruled by those with the most money. I hope the US pulls finger and gets their government working more for the common good. It would be nice if it was the common world good (from the outside the US seems to trend towards sociopathic levels of selfish behavior - sorry for the label misuse).

JojoFatsani 2y ago

How are journalists to get out of the lower earnings percentile if not paid by their employers?