←back to thread

191 points impish9208 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.407s | source
Show context
vvpan ◴[] 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 #
WalterBright ◴[] 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 #
1. vvpan ◴[] 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 #
2. WalterBright ◴[] No.45111941[source]
Piketty neglecting a major component of income doesn't auger well for the rest of his analysis.