5 ms·

> the professors put forth as potential solutions [...] education, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, immigration, and basic research. Couldn't the other soluti

> the professors put forth as potential solutions [...] education, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, immigration, and basic research. Couldn't the other solution be less greed on the part of business owners? It seems like the bigger issue is that they just aren't paying their people enough.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Well, ok, the professors put forth as potential solutions inside the increasingly narrow Overton Window... such and such and so. Actually solving this crisis necessarily involves widening the Overton Window to include things like "strengthen labor in its bargaining position against capital" and "reduce the economic rents charged on land, natural resources, and intellectual 'property'".
Afforess 11y ago
>Couldn't the other solution be less greed on the part of business owners? Greed has very little to do with the problem. If one business pays their employees slightly less, and gains an edge over the competition by doing so, it forces their competitors to either adopt the same lowered pay rates, or slowly be defeated in the market. Only one "bad" actor has to be 'greedy' to force the entire market to chase lower wages. Often this can become a self-perpetuating system, driving down wages. It is probably impossible to prevent this sort of behavior. The incentives to avoid chasing lower wages do not exist, or are very weak. Also consider that higher wages increases incentives for businesses to automate labor. Even if you create a higher minimum wage, the pace of automation will increase. The fact of the matter is that the supply of jobs now no longer matches the number of employable people, and the supply will continue to shrink, indefinitely.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Only one "bad" actor has to be 'greedy' to force the entire market to chase lower wages. Often this can become a self-perpetuating system, driving down wages. > It is probably impossible to prevent this sort of behavior. > The fact of the matter is that the supply of jobs now no longer matches the number of employable people, and the supply will continue to shrink, indefinitely. Hence why you tax productivity, and provide a strong social safety net with it (we will eventually need to go so far as a basic income, I'm sure of it). This graph from the BLS illustrates where those gains we're taxing come from (hint: software/automation productivity gains). Regulation is the only solution to enable a fair playing field for all, citizens and corporations alike. https://i.imgur.com/E2xd96M.jpg https://i.imgur.com/E2xd96M.jpg
- beachstartup 11y ago
  this is part of it. however, things are just out-of-whack economically. in my company, we pay our most-senior engineers above-market wages, for a variety of reasons including retention, schedule demands, etc. for example, we pay a senior remote sysadmin in the south/midwest $150k. we are based in southern california where that salary would still be above-market. the truth of the matter is even if we paid him 200 grand, his real income would probably not be as good as it was 30 years ago. our local california engineers can't afford houses+family no matter how much we pay them (within reason - assuming single income). i know people from the previous generation who own multiple houses on what were modest single incomes. something fundamental is driving the cost component of everything through the fucking roof, without a corresponding increase in purchasing power. employers/managers can be only so generous - the dollar just isn't going as far. in other words, the actual purchasing power is accruing at the very very top in an entirely different class of ultra-rich people. small biz owners, middle managers and employees are getting shafted even though everyone is trying their hardest to keep things on an even keel.
  - meatysnapper 11y ago
    What is so expensive? Is it everday goods? Is it property in nice areas (or rent)? I suspect that the move back towards cities has something to do with it.
  - fraserharris 11y ago
    There is little evidence of an unaffordability of everyday expenses (beyond inflation) apart from housing costs. There are three underlying trends driving super-inflation of housing costs are: a) House prices are correlated to what the maximum monthly mortgage a household is willing to pay in a geographic area. For most of developed world, the average household now has two income earners. b) The previous generation benefited greatly from the suburbanization of cities. Cheap land was converted into reasonably priced housing (subsidized by highway expansion). We've reached the point where this cheap land is now so far from the city center that the downsides (commute, job opportunities) exceed the cost savings. c) We are seeing large economic network effects in agglomerating around fewer large metros (ex: NYC, LA, Bay Area, Chicago, Houston, DFW, Atlanta, DC). These metros have not responded with sufficient housing construction or transportation infrastructure despite the continued growth in population.
mikeash 11y ago
These are policy ideas, which is to say, actions that might be taken by the government. I can see how the government might provide education, build infrastructure, encourage entrepreneurship, boost immigration, and perform basic research. I don't see how the government could cause less greed on the part of business owners. That may be a solution in the sense that if it happened it would work, but how would you make that happen?
- jtbigwoo 11y ago
  You'd enact redistributive tax and spending policies and high minimum wages. You'd reduce government spending for corporations. You'd make it difficult to fire workers. You'd make the U.S. more like Europe, basically.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    Europe has its own problems, despite the many things it does right, because it still entrenches the rent-extraction powers of the elite. In fact, it often does so more than the USA: real-estate often isn't taxed at anything like proportional rates in some European countries, and European laws are often harsher on debtors and bankrupt entrepreneurs than American ones.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I'd put that in a different category than "less greed." What you're doing is adjusting the consequences of the greed, but not directly adjusting people's emotional states and desires. You might even indirectly adjust the emotion, but to describe what you're actually doing you'd describe it as you have here, not "less greed." It's the difference between describing what you'll do and what you want to happen. Too many people simply state the latter and then declare victory. "Why don't we just solve global warming by producing less CO2?" To me, "less greed" is solidly in that category.
jerf 11y ago
In general, at any scale from the personal to the societal, "Just be better!" is not an actionable solution.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Well, ok, the professors put forth as potential solutions inside the increasingly narrow Overton Window... such and such and so. Actually solving this crisis necessarily involves widening the Overton Window to include things like "strengthen labor in its bargaining position against capital" and "reduce the economic rents charged on land, natural resources, and intellectual 'property'".

Afforess 11y ago

>Couldn't the other solution be less greed on the part of business owners? Greed has very little to do with the problem. If one business pays their employees slightly less, and gains an edge over the competition by doing so, it forces their competitors to either adopt the same lowered pay rates, or slowly be defeated in the market. Only one "bad" actor has to be 'greedy' to force the entire market to chase lower wages. Often this can become a self-perpetuating system, driving down wages. It is probably impossible to prevent this sort of behavior. The incentives to avoid chasing lower wages do not exist, or are very weak. Also consider that higher wages increases incentives for businesses to automate labor. Even if you create a higher minimum wage, the pace of automation will increase. The fact of the matter is that the supply of jobs now no longer matches the number of employable people, and the supply will continue to shrink, indefinitely.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Only one "bad" actor has to be 'greedy' to force the entire market to chase lower wages. Often this can become a self-perpetuating system, driving down wages. > It is probably impossible to prevent this sort of behavior. > The fact of the matter is that the supply of jobs now no longer matches the number of employable people, and the supply will continue to shrink, indefinitely. Hence why you tax productivity, and provide a strong social safety net with it (we will eventually need to go so far as a basic income, I'm sure of it). This graph from the BLS illustrates where those gains we're taxing come from (hint: software/automation productivity gains). Regulation is the only solution to enable a fair playing field for all, citizens and corporations alike. https://i.imgur.com/E2xd96M.jpg https://i.imgur.com/E2xd96M.jpg
beachstartup 11y ago
this is part of it. however, things are just out-of-whack economically. in my company, we pay our most-senior engineers above-market wages, for a variety of reasons including retention, schedule demands, etc. for example, we pay a senior remote sysadmin in the south/midwest $150k. we are based in southern california where that salary would still be above-market. the truth of the matter is even if we paid him 200 grand, his real income would probably not be as good as it was 30 years ago. our local california engineers can't afford houses+family no matter how much we pay them (within reason - assuming single income). i know people from the previous generation who own multiple houses on what were modest single incomes. something fundamental is driving the cost component of everything through the fucking roof, without a corresponding increase in purchasing power. employers/managers can be only so generous - the dollar just isn't going as far. in other words, the actual purchasing power is accruing at the very very top in an entirely different class of ultra-rich people. small biz owners, middle managers and employees are getting shafted even though everyone is trying their hardest to keep things on an even keel.
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  What is so expensive? Is it everday goods? Is it property in nice areas (or rent)? I suspect that the move back towards cities has something to do with it.
- fraserharris 11y ago
  There is little evidence of an unaffordability of everyday expenses (beyond inflation) apart from housing costs. There are three underlying trends driving super-inflation of housing costs are: a) House prices are correlated to what the maximum monthly mortgage a household is willing to pay in a geographic area. For most of developed world, the average household now has two income earners. b) The previous generation benefited greatly from the suburbanization of cities. Cheap land was converted into reasonably priced housing (subsidized by highway expansion). We've reached the point where this cheap land is now so far from the city center that the downsides (commute, job opportunities) exceed the cost savings. c) We are seeing large economic network effects in agglomerating around fewer large metros (ex: NYC, LA, Bay Area, Chicago, Houston, DFW, Atlanta, DC). These metros have not responded with sufficient housing construction or transportation infrastructure despite the continued growth in population.

mikeash 11y ago

These are policy ideas, which is to say, actions that might be taken by the government. I can see how the government might provide education, build infrastructure, encourage entrepreneurship, boost immigration, and perform basic research. I don't see how the government could cause less greed on the part of business owners. That may be a solution in the sense that if it happened it would work, but how would you make that happen?

jtbigwoo 11y ago
You'd enact redistributive tax and spending policies and high minimum wages. You'd reduce government spending for corporations. You'd make it difficult to fire workers. You'd make the U.S. more like Europe, basically.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Europe has its own problems, despite the many things it does right, because it still entrenches the rent-extraction powers of the elite. In fact, it often does so more than the USA: real-estate often isn't taxed at anything like proportional rates in some European countries, and European laws are often harsher on debtors and bankrupt entrepreneurs than American ones.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I'd put that in a different category than "less greed." What you're doing is adjusting the consequences of the greed, but not directly adjusting people's emotional states and desires. You might even indirectly adjust the emotion, but to describe what you're actually doing you'd describe it as you have here, not "less greed." It's the difference between describing what you'll do and what you want to happen. Too many people simply state the latter and then declare victory. "Why don't we just solve global warming by producing less CO2?" To me, "less greed" is solidly in that category.

jerf 11y ago

In general, at any scale from the personal to the societal, "Just be better!" is not an actionable solution.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]