4 ms·

> The math underlying the models is widely known, and there are tons of competitors, including foreign competitors. Foreign militaries investing in autonomous

by boothby 4mo ago

> The math underlying the models is widely known, and there are tons of competitors, including foreign competitors. Foreign militaries investing in autonomous warfare does not assuage my concerns about my country investing in autonomous warfare. Also, have you been paying attention to median wages vs median CEO wages since the 1960s? The benefits of computing really have gone to the captains of industry.

pydry 4mo ago
Tech isn't special. The value of pretty much all productivity improvements since ~1979 have been captured either via the stock market (97% owned by the top 10% in wealth) or land rents.
- boothby 4mo ago
  If tech isn't special, why are nine of the ten richest Americans in tech?
rayiner 4mo ago
> Also, have you been paying attention to median wages vs median CEO wages since the 1960s CEO pay isn’t a good proxy for “captains of industry.” What you want to look at is the labor versus capital share of income. That’s been very stable since the 1960s: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/labor-share-net-income-within-historical-range https://taxfoundation.org/blog/labor-share-net-income-within....
- foltik 4mo ago
  Clearly that's not a good proxy either then... even the article itself says: > Ultimately, concerns over inequality should focus on differences within labor compensation rather than the split between labor and capital. The main issues I can see are: - This "labor share" includes multi-million dollar executive pay packages, so it's heavily skewed towards the 1% - It also completely ignores unrealized capital gains and loans against them, which is how the ultra-wealthy actually fund their lifestyles tax-free, with a tiny income on paper
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    Do those factors meaningfully change the picture? For example, total compensation for Fortune 500 CEOs is only $8.5 billion, which is a rounding error compared to total labor income. And CEOs at the bottom of that range make a few million, so it’s unlikely that CEOs in non-Fortune 500 companies are making the eye popping salaries you’re talking about. Similarly, what percentage of wealthy people take loans against their assets to fund their lifestyle? You should be able to quantify this if it’s happening at scale. The income share of the top 1%—so including run of the mill doctors and lawyers—has grown from 15% in 1970 to 21% today: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before-tax-wid https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before.... There is no way that delta is enough to eat up all the income growth since then.
    - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
      Some numbers https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272725002178 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472... "The income tax base captures 60 % of economic income of the top 1 % of wealth-holders.". I would love if only 60% of my income was taxed. Heck I'm now even taxed on used junk I sell using Paypal (that I bought with taxed income dollars and paid sales tax on). But a tax that includes that other 40% of the top 1%'s economic income, guys, we can't do that. But don't forget to file your Paypal taxes or waves at threat of prison. "Focusing on the top 1 %, while total borrowing is substantial, new borrowing each year is fairly small (1–2 % of economic income) compared to their new unrealized gains" "1 % of wealth-holders (above $14 million in 2022)" 1-2% of $14,000,000 is $140,000 to $280,000 a year. The median personal income is $45,140. They are benefiting untaxed to the tune of 3-6 times the median American income. 1-2% of 100 million is 1-2 million dollars a year untaxed benefit (44x median income). That is substantial. I would love to benefit annually by that 'insignificant' amount goin untaxed. We should either exclude all economic income below $140,000 to $2,000,000 from taxation or change to tax this loan scheme that allows the top 1% to avoid their share on income 44x the median and even higher.
      - rayiner 4mo ago
        That article actually proves the opposite of what you’re saying: “For the top 1 %, new borrowing each year is fairly small: 1–2 % of economic income. ‘Buy, borrow, die’ is not a dominant tax avoidance strategy for the rich.” OP above said that billionaires pay for their lifestyle by taking loans they never pay lack, and the article says that isn’t a common approach. > 1-2% of 100 million is 1-2 million dollars a year untaxed benefit (44x median income). That is substantial. No, it’s not substantial because very few people make $100 million a year, while many people make the median income. For example, billionaires last year added $1.5 trillion to their wealth, of which 56% was unrealized gains. If you take 2% of those gains as in the article, you get $16.8 billion that should be taxed as income but isn’t being taxed. I’d be fine taxing that money at the top marginal rate or whatever you want to do. But it would raise a piddling amount of money. That’s a rounding error compared to total AGI, which is over $15 trillion. The U.S. governments spend $16.8 billion every 14 hours.
- littlexsparkee 4mo ago
  If depreciation accounts for the gap (difference in share of output vs net income), investing in replacing machines just means that more will accrue to owners of capital in future.
- danny_codes 4mo ago
  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=U...
torginus 4mo ago
Yet, that 80s CEO, practically a peasant by modern standards of pay, had the option to cross the Atlantic in a Mach 2 supersonic airliner. If that's not the most obvious demonstration of technological prowess, I don't know what is. In contrast, the F-35, believed to be the world's most advanced fighter jet today, has a top speed of Mach 1.6 Today's CEOs get a gold-plated sky bus.
- dsr_ 4mo ago
  The Concorde was cramped. JFK to Heathrow took five hours (3 in the air, an hour in each airport) plus the time for first and last miles. JFK to Heathrow today is 7 to 8 hours with the same provisos. If you're going to spend a quarter of the day travelling, why not spend a third of the day and do it more comfortably? The F-35 isn't the fastest jet; fighter jets aren't business jets; apples are not rutabagas.
  - torginus 4mo ago
    It's about pushing the envelope. If your technology is limited by certain physical constraints, then all of the things you make will end up being constrained by the same stuff. After a short exploration you can reach the conclusion that nothing new is worth inventing any more. Only by loosening those constraints can you make something that's meaningfully better.
- hollerith 4mo ago
  If travelling fast were an essential component of living a good life or having a good civilization, then that would say something.
- danny_codes 4mo ago
  The reason we don't have supersonic planes is that they're way too loud. The noise pollution isn't worth a couple rich people getting to their destination slightly faster. Just look at GINI index: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=U... That's all you need to know

by boothby 4mo ago

pydry 4mo ago

Tech isn't special. The value of pretty much all productivity improvements since ~1979 have been captured either via the stock market (97% owned by the top 10% in wealth) or land rents.

boothby 4mo ago
If tech isn't special, why are nine of the ten richest Americans in tech?

rayiner 4mo ago

> Also, have you been paying attention to median wages vs median CEO wages since the 1960s CEO pay isn’t a good proxy for “captains of industry.” What you want to look at is the labor versus capital share of income. That’s been very stable since the 1960s: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/labor-share-net-income-within-historical-range https://taxfoundation.org/blog/labor-share-net-income-within....

foltik 4mo ago
Clearly that's not a good proxy either then... even the article itself says: > Ultimately, concerns over inequality should focus on differences within labor compensation rather than the split between labor and capital. The main issues I can see are: - This "labor share" includes multi-million dollar executive pay packages, so it's heavily skewed towards the 1% - It also completely ignores unrealized capital gains and loans against them, which is how the ultra-wealthy actually fund their lifestyles tax-free, with a tiny income on paper
- rayiner 4mo ago
  Do those factors meaningfully change the picture? For example, total compensation for Fortune 500 CEOs is only $8.5 billion, which is a rounding error compared to total labor income. And CEOs at the bottom of that range make a few million, so it’s unlikely that CEOs in non-Fortune 500 companies are making the eye popping salaries you’re talking about. Similarly, what percentage of wealthy people take loans against their assets to fund their lifestyle? You should be able to quantify this if it’s happening at scale. The income share of the top 1%—so including run of the mill doctors and lawyers—has grown from 15% in 1970 to 21% today: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before-tax-wid https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before.... There is no way that delta is enough to eat up all the income growth since then.
  - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
    Some numbers https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272725002178 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472... "The income tax base captures 60 % of economic income of the top 1 % of wealth-holders.". I would love if only 60% of my income was taxed. Heck I'm now even taxed on used junk I sell using Paypal (that I bought with taxed income dollars and paid sales tax on). But a tax that includes that other 40% of the top 1%'s economic income, guys, we can't do that. But don't forget to file your Paypal taxes or waves at threat of prison. "Focusing on the top 1 %, while total borrowing is substantial, new borrowing each year is fairly small (1–2 % of economic income) compared to their new unrealized gains" "1 % of wealth-holders (above $14 million in 2022)" 1-2% of $14,000,000 is $140,000 to $280,000 a year. The median personal income is $45,140. They are benefiting untaxed to the tune of 3-6 times the median American income. 1-2% of 100 million is 1-2 million dollars a year untaxed benefit (44x median income). That is substantial. I would love to benefit annually by that 'insignificant' amount goin untaxed. We should either exclude all economic income below $140,000 to $2,000,000 from taxation or change to tax this loan scheme that allows the top 1% to avoid their share on income 44x the median and even higher.
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      That article actually proves the opposite of what you’re saying: “For the top 1 %, new borrowing each year is fairly small: 1–2 % of economic income. ‘Buy, borrow, die’ is not a dominant tax avoidance strategy for the rich.” OP above said that billionaires pay for their lifestyle by taking loans they never pay lack, and the article says that isn’t a common approach. > 1-2% of 100 million is 1-2 million dollars a year untaxed benefit (44x median income). That is substantial. No, it’s not substantial because very few people make $100 million a year, while many people make the median income. For example, billionaires last year added $1.5 trillion to their wealth, of which 56% was unrealized gains. If you take 2% of those gains as in the article, you get $16.8 billion that should be taxed as income but isn’t being taxed. I’d be fine taxing that money at the top marginal rate or whatever you want to do. But it would raise a piddling amount of money. That’s a rounding error compared to total AGI, which is over $15 trillion. The U.S. governments spend $16.8 billion every 14 hours.
littlexsparkee 4mo ago
If depreciation accounts for the gap (difference in share of output vs net income), investing in replacing machines just means that more will accrue to owners of capital in future.
danny_codes 4mo ago
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=U...

torginus 4mo ago

Yet, that 80s CEO, practically a peasant by modern standards of pay, had the option to cross the Atlantic in a Mach 2 supersonic airliner. If that's not the most obvious demonstration of technological prowess, I don't know what is. In contrast, the F-35, believed to be the world's most advanced fighter jet today, has a top speed of Mach 1.6 Today's CEOs get a gold-plated sky bus.

dsr_ 4mo ago
The Concorde was cramped. JFK to Heathrow took five hours (3 in the air, an hour in each airport) plus the time for first and last miles. JFK to Heathrow today is 7 to 8 hours with the same provisos. If you're going to spend a quarter of the day travelling, why not spend a third of the day and do it more comfortably? The F-35 isn't the fastest jet; fighter jets aren't business jets; apples are not rutabagas.
- torginus 4mo ago
  It's about pushing the envelope. If your technology is limited by certain physical constraints, then all of the things you make will end up being constrained by the same stuff. After a short exploration you can reach the conclusion that nothing new is worth inventing any more. Only by loosening those constraints can you make something that's meaningfully better.
hollerith 4mo ago
If travelling fast were an essential component of living a good life or having a good civilization, then that would say something.
danny_codes 4mo ago
The reason we don't have supersonic planes is that they're way too loud. The noise pollution isn't worth a couple rich people getting to their destination slightly faster. Just look at GINI index: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=U... That's all you need to know