Most active commenters
  • analognoise(6)
  • didgetmaster(3)

←back to thread

996

(lucumr.pocoo.org)
1001 points genericlemon24 | 15 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
stego-tech ◴[] No.45149449[source]
These times really do feel like those once-in-a-century redefinitions of work and labor, similar to how we got Child Labor Laws and 40-hour work weeks from the labor movement early last century. Intrinsically, more people are realizing that the former social contract was long ago fed into a shredder, and that the lack of a formal contract will have consequences. Technology broke down the 40-hour work week by enabling more work to be done both outside the office and after traditional working hours, drastically increasing productivity and profit while wages stagnated for decades in the face of skyrocketing costs. Now we’re racing ahead towards a breaking point between Capital cheering shit like 996 and AI job-replacement, while more humans can’t afford rent, or food, let alone education or healthcare on their burrito taxi wages.

Something will eventually have to give, if we aren’t proactive in addressing the crises before us. Last time, it took two World Wars, the military bombing miners, law enforcement assassinating union organizers, and companies stockpiling chemical weapons and machine guns before the political class finally realized things must change or all hell would break loose; I only hope we come to our senses far, far sooner this time around.

replies(6): >>45149684 #>>45149819 #>>45149975 #>>45150057 #>>45150329 #>>45150542 #
mananaysiempre ◴[] No.45149684[source]
It also took Russia going to shit to an extent that got everybody else scared—and that Russia still hasn’t really recovered from, because repeatedly cutting the elite out of your society (however unfairly it’s gotten there) really fucks that society up.
replies(2): >>45149823 #>>45149859 #
1. analognoise ◴[] No.45149859[source]
What?

When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s.

We don’t need “the elite” - they don’t actually “create jobs”, and the “engine of the economy” is just a convenient vehicle for the rich (and private equity) to ruin the middle class further - it was never about “efficient markets”.

If anything what we’ve seen over the last 40 years is that we need better systems.

replies(2): >>45150009 #>>45150032 #
2. kevin_thibedeau ◴[] No.45150009[source]
There is some benefit from having a pool of people with enough funds to take investment risks that the rank and file can't. They can outmaneuver any planned economy. The problem in the US is that those people have engineered themselves a disproportionate wealth disparity that doesn't generate a collective benefit.
replies(2): >>45150128 #>>45150443 #
3. andsoitis ◴[] No.45150032[source]
> When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s.

I think you got this wrong. According to my sources the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6%.

It was during the 50s, 60s, and 70s that it never dipped below 70%.

Source: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco...

The other thing is that different dimensions of the economy and other societal aspect have different lagging effects so you cannot simply assume causation or correlation between things during the same time frame.

replies(1): >>45150419 #
4. blacksmith_tb ◴[] No.45150401{3}[source]
That's a novel take on diversity, but I think your window is too small. The US was full of similar anti-immigrant sentiment a century ago, directed at southern and eastern European new arrivals. Today no one is calling for Poles and Italians to be deported. The "melting pot" can work, if no one is actively trying to kick it over.
5. didgetmaster ◴[] No.45150419[source]
The 'tax the rich' crowd loves to quote the top marginal rates from 50 years ago; but did anyone ever really pay those rates?

Tax shelters were common in those days with the rich paying accountants and tax attorneys to find ways of avoiding those astronomical rates.

replies(1): >>45150459 #
6. analognoise ◴[] No.45150420{3}[source]
Considering our success so far, it’s obvious it’s succeeding. You’d have to ignore your eyes and ears to think a multiracial secular democratic country can succeed.

What’s amazing is that racists seem to be trying to screw it up on purpose, then to claim it doesn’t work. “Starve the beast” but for social cohesion. They’re always surprised when they get bitten by the monster they created.

The rich never had “noblesse oblige” - we used to shoot at the factory owner when they didn’t pay us.

I’m not sure what to do with such a limited understanding of history and such an obvious blind spot as this, but then I remember: you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

7. analognoise ◴[] No.45150443[source]
That used to be “industrial policy” - it doesn’t need to be individuals at all. In fact it shouldn’t be - they’re concerned with returns, not jobs and certainly not with any technology that requires a longer timespan to complete.

The Biden administration had excellent industrial policy. Trump had the government steal a 10% share of Intel.

Watching people realize he’s just a criminal loser has been heartening.

8. analognoise ◴[] No.45150459{3}[source]
Some people tried to evade the system - that’s why we have helicopters. We can just grab them and bring them to court, no problem.

I don’t think “some people didn’t abide the rules” is reason not to make sensible laws.

replies(2): >>45150763 #>>45152043 #
9. crossbody ◴[] No.45150763{4}[source]
Yeah, sure, helicopters is all you need to catch millions of sophisticated tax evaders using semi-legal loopholes developed and implemented by professional accountants and lawyers.

Read about Laffer Curve for a start.

replies(2): >>45151580 #>>45151952 #
10. analognoise ◴[] No.45151580{5}[source]
The Laffer Curve is frequently cited by the same people who refuse to see the failure of conservative-style economic policy over the last 40 years, for some reason.

It’s clear all that “don’t tax the rich, they create jobs!” Is just trash. Noise. We have 40 years of data, it doesn’t work.

But still, someone ignores all that to tell me the Laffer Curve, every time. What’s also amazing is that they don’t really understand it themselves. Wild.

replies(2): >>45152359 #>>45159776 #
11. immibis ◴[] No.45151952{5}[source]
> Read about Laffer Curve

Your comment lost all credibility right here

replies(1): >>45152452 #
12. didgetmaster ◴[] No.45152043{4}[source]
There is a big difference between tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (completely legal). Many of the tax shelters and loopholes utilized by the rich when top marginal rates exceeded 50% were completely legit.
13. didgetmaster ◴[] No.45152359{6}[source]
So we have 40 years of data that clearly shows that advocating for reasonable tax rates for the wealthy "doesn't work"? I world love to see the detailed analysis that proves that!

Even the most staunch conservative wants the rich to pay their "fair share" of taxes. The only legitimate debate is about what constitutes 'fair'. The flat tax advocates will at least give you a real number (10%, 15%, or even 20%). Progressives will never give you a number. Why?

14. analognoise ◴[] No.45152452{6}[source]
Agreed; it’s an embarrassing argument.
15. crossbody ◴[] No.45159776{6}[source]
So you disagree with the core principle behind Laffer Curve?

Lots of totally baseless assumptions and accusations in your comment. I wonder where on Dunning-Kruger curve you are at regarding this topic.