←back to thread

Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

(www.wsj.com)
191 points impish9208 | 9 comments | 02 Sep 25 15:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.831s | source | bottom
Show context
vvpan ◴[02 Sep 25 15:40 UTC] No.45104552[source]▶
I have not read the whole of "Capital in 21st Century", just the opening chapter. But the picture the chapter painted was quiet grim - income inequality growing rapidly every year as "innovation" and jobs declined. In other words Piketty's numbers have shown that one cannot work their way to a comfortable living years ago and IMO this is at the heart of almost all political processes these days - inability to earn a living wage. The "leaders" use a whole range of tactics to divert the discontent onto other things like big government or immigration, and those are important topics, but they are not _the_ problem. Wage stagnation is the ultimate issue.
replies(1): >>45104819 #
1. WalterBright ◴[02 Sep 25 15:58 UTC] No.45104819[source]▶
> big government

Is indeed an issue, as it corresponds with the malaise you describe.

> wage stagnation

is in part due to the government increasing the costs of hiring people. That indirectly results in correspondingly lower wages. The so-called "employers' contribution" is a misrepresentation.

replies(3): >>45104973 #>>45105014 #>>45105072 #
2. malcolmgreaves ◴[02 Sep 25 16:08 UTC] No.45104973[source]▶
You think the greed of billionaires is the governments’ fault?
replies(1): >>45105875 #
3. coliveira ◴[02 Sep 25 16:11 UTC] No.45105014[source]▶
> government increasing the costs of hiring people

This is lazy thinking. If the government is indeed increasing costs, this is happening to everyone across the board. So why would anyone in particular be affected by this? It could even be true in a situation where profits were falling across the economy, but the numbers show that profits are INCREASING for most companies in the US at least. So how can these companies justify that it is the government forcing them to hire less people if they have more money every year?

replies(1): >>45105849 #
4. vvpan ◴[02 Sep 25 16:15 UTC] No.45105072[source]▶
I am not going to say that I have the data but from what I remember that was not identified as one of the causative concerns in the book.

Subjectively I doubt that that is a systematic driver of income inequality. For example in 60s the taxes in the higher margins were extremely high (80% I think?) and worker bargaining power was strong. Yet it was a period of unprecedented growth and innovation, one where ideas of invisible hand and tide that lifts all boats were forged but in reality it was not a laissez-fair period at all.

replies(1): >>45111941 #
5. WalterBright ◴[02 Sep 25 17:03 UTC] No.45105849[source]▶
> If the government is indeed increasing costs

If? It's a certainty. For starters, the only reason HR departments exist is to try to comply with all the regulations. HR departments are expensive. For seconds, all the "employer contributions" to payroll taxes. Then there are all the wage laws, and mandatory this, and mandated that.

All increase costs of employing people, which comes out of the employees' pockets one way or another.

Profits do not drive employment. What drives employment is the employee provides more value than they cost to hire.

replies(1): >>45107995 #
6. WalterBright ◴[02 Sep 25 17:05 UTC] No.45105875[source]▶
Everybody's greedy, Malcolm. It's why markets function.
7. coliveira ◴[02 Sep 25 19:37 UTC] No.45107995{3}[source]▶
As I said above, everyone is subjected to the same work regulations, so it becomes a moot point. It is a form of tax, so that is not an issue that affects a single employer. And it doesn't come from "employer pockets" any more than the cost of raw materials. Every business owner treats the cost of raw materials with all taxes as a given, but then when it comes to workers they whine as if it was the end of the world. It only shows they're whining and frankly annoying people.
replies(1): >>45110917 #
8. WalterBright ◴[03 Sep 25 00:33 UTC] No.45110917{4}[source]▶
> And it doesn't come from "employer pockets" any more than the cost of raw materials.

Yes, it does, because what the employer cares about is the cost of having the employee vs the value that the employee delivers. Cost of raw materials is not relevant.

> they whine

I recommend you start a business and test your theories!

9. WalterBright ◴[03 Sep 25 03:19 UTC] No.45111941[source]▶
Piketty neglecting a major component of income doesn't auger well for the rest of his analysis.