People are misreading the conclusion - the Covid related drop is normal and matches previous episodes, but the massive overall drop since 2000 is not.
The situation on the ground is unchanged - the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us.
"The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion."
New factories use very few people, part of the reason why it's difficult for many countries to industrialize like South Korea or China did (climbing manufacturing ladder).
> Further the jobs from building the factory are temporary.
This is correct, and it has an impact on local employment and social dynamics, but not at the country level.
> They need fewer people to build and to maintain than older ones did.
That's absolutely not true. Quite the opposite. You do need less people to build and maintain a modern plant than to operate an factory in the past.
Also, you need to clarify what you mean by “older”, because heavy industries have automated steadily between the 50s and the 80s, and that process was mostly achieved by the 90s.
And I can't think of an industry that was still labor intensive by the 20s and that has been more impacted by automation than offshoring.
There’s plenty of papers showing exactly this. What do you think has driven productivity? People simply bring smarter?
The fact is capital expenditure from company or investors has bought machinery, compute, pipelines, transport, and massive investment to make those workers more productive for decades. As such, the returns to capital as a share has increased. Those places able to deploy capital to add productivity win over those that don’t.
And real total remuneration across all quintiles has increased significantly. BLS among others has all historical data to check.
If/when there’s a period where there isn’t more gains to be had by more investment per worker, and workers become more productive via their own skill (education, diet, genetic implants,…), then more returns will flow that direction.
Automation isn't foreign to the topic. There's some discussion here that refrains from estimating too hard, but I think it's closer to outsourcing's effect:
Outsourcing and automation both reduce worker leverage, which reduces wages, which could explain reduced labor share. I'm not sure how one would weight it all.
Employee compensation comes from capital. And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc.
There's a return on capital than is not spent on employees. That reflects how much capital is growing and how much can be spent on employees in the future.
>And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc.
Just as are the top executives. And the shareholders that have put money into companies that provide "robots, etc.". All these people, including labor, are stakeholders. If there was 5% GDP growth that got reflected as 5% growth in net earnings for the company, one would expect that all the stakeholders would see roughly a 5% increase in their personal earnings from the company. The dollar amount would be higher for higher earners (5% of $1M is greater than 5% of $50k), but the percentage increase would be roughly in line. The real world results are not even close to this "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal.
>They didn't make the rising tide analogy, I read it as how much could be captured by labor if we increased leverage.
Fair point, though it's not completely clear from the comment.
>Wages have historically been a lagging indicator.
Of course, companies don't know in advance that they're going to have GDP-assisted growth. My point was that growth on the back of GDP growth is a collective windfall, and you'd expect it to be evenly distributed. But it clearly isn't.
All human collective endeavors (with few exceptions) require 3 kinds of human-related input: capital, labor and ideas.
Nobody puts their capital into an endeavor in which the plan is for the that capital to provide renumeration for the labor for more than the shortest possible time (*). The goal is always to generate revenue in sufficient volume to pay for the labor, and when that goal is met, that success is a function of all 3 kinds of contribution.
So no, employee compensation does not come from capital, but from revenue that results from the successful interaction of capital, labor and ideas.
(*) non-profits would be an obvious exception, except that nobody actually talks about investing capital in such organizations, we just make "donations" or "grants". That money plays the same role as capital, however.
"Top 10%" is such a misleading slice here. The guy who's at the 9.99th percentile is a normal salaried worker not doing better. The gains are entirely concentrated in the tiny billionaire slice buried inside that 10%. In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom deciles [1]. Incomes still grow fast in the top decile, but mostly due to assets. And those assets are disproportionately in the hands of the billionaire slice of that top decile.
The top 10% incomes have tons of assets, especially homes.
Saying that billionaires "disproportionately" have more assets than non-billionaires is a tautology that says nothing. You might as well say that tall people have disproportionately more height than people who are not tall. Billionaire is a statement about wealth, not income.
> In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom deciles
Which is a very good thing, but also doesn't address anything. The bottom deciles live from their wages. The top decile either put most of their wages into assets, are already so wealthy that their wages don't matter, or live in luxury they can't afford.
The macroeconomic purpose of inflation as a tool is to lower the wages of high wage earners - because socially you can't really lower people's wages, at best you can refuse refuse them raises. It's easy to raise the income of lower deciles to offset inflation, either through legislation or safety net. Middle-high wage earners who do nothing under inflation face an effective pay cut.
> The guy who's at the 9.99th percentile is a normal salaried worker not doing better.
He is not normal, he is in the top 10%. His income triples or quadruples a median income. He is of course not doing better than himself, but he is doing better than 90% of other people by definition.
Point is that income from dividends, rent and capital gains far outstrips the $150k the 90th percentile guy makes [1], which you have conveniently ignored. The $150k 90th percentile earner has more common with the $50k 50th percentile earner than he does with the billionaire earning $100M of capital gains, dividends and rent from assets. The 90th percentile guy is a wage laborer like the 50th percentile guy; they are effectively the same class. The only different class is the capital owning class.
Being able to afford a slightly nicer car or house does not change your class. Being able to influence elections, buy lobbying power, play power games, being in the "in" group of capitalism changes your class.
Household income at the 90th percentile is about $250k per the US census. [1] And wealth disparities tend to be much larger yet still since a significant chunk of the $250k spending is going to go into things they have equity in like mortgage/low depreciation assets/etc, as opposed to food and rent. Especially in modern times where seemingly every industry is trying to figure out ways to charge rent while providing as little in return as possible.
Aren't most of the tech workers here part of that 10% and I'd assume they own houses in some of the most expensive areas, so they are technically part of the capital class?
Being a part of the "capital class" does not mean simply having passed a net worth threshold.
It means having sufficient liquid capital that you can invest it in uncertain outcomes, generally without fear of poverty or perhaps any real negative effects on one's life at all.
Owning a very expensive home in a very high cost-of-living place (or even in a not-so-high cost-of-living place) does not place a person in that position.
defining classes is complicated. if you do it based on income percentile it will always be arbitrary and never reflect actual economic relations.
the most accepted way to divide in socialist circles is based off where your income comes from, your relation to capital. if you have to work for someone else thats working class (proletariat), if you can be independent you are professional or middle class, if you own the means of production for others that makes you a capitalist. owning a house is only capital class if you rent it out.
from that pov almost all tech workers are professional or working class. with founder ceos its more complicated because they own capital but also work for themselves through their company so you can take them as either. i guess it depends on if you like that person.
Your incentives come from where your money comes from. This is a pretty basic concept and it's absurd to brush it off as a form of No True Scotsman.
You can get money from both labor and capital. This is called "middle class." Don't let it melt your brain, but don't oversimplify to "you owned a stock so are capital class" either. Just give the labor/capital percentages (ordinary income / capital gains) and note how it leans.
Exactly. The original comment in this thread asked if most tech workers here are part of the capital class themselves. Which was answered by saying that if you're employed by someone else, you are part of the worker class and thus tech workers are part of the worker class.
Introducing the fact that it's a spectrum and that equity ownership (which a vast majority of people in this industry have) makes you a capital owner is exactly my correction to that.
Most tech workers do not get compensated with stock. A fraction of the best compensated get stock. The next tier down get options with so many caveats that they are effectively worthless, and the tier below them are straight salary with no equity even entering the horizon for them.
And yea, once you start getting actual capital and start reaping the benefits of that wealth you start being identified as a capitalist in the socialist world view.
Edit: the comment I replied to originally had this sentence at the end
> Very typical for a certain type of folk. It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.
You are in a bubble if you are surprised at the idea of companies not giving out stock, much less RSUs specifically. While it’s common in the big tech Silicon Valley companies there are thousands of other tech companies where the most they give are options, and I must repeat with a litany of caveats that make them effectively worthless, and even more where they only pay salary and have no way to gain equity at all.
I am in a lower tier of the market than Silicon Valley and after 15 years of making over six figure salary I have not been given a single stock, and none of my employees or members of my social circles that don’t work at FAANGs have either.
Considering how my second paragraph was ignored, I assume you own stock in major companies either directly or through indices, thus making you a capital owner that makes money from other people's work (work used in the literal sense)?
Note that around half of the US stock market is passively owned, so this is not a small number on aggregate
Further see: my reply to a sibling in this same thread.
I “own” stock through my 401k. The “own” is in scare quotes because I cannot liquidate it other than as a loan for a home, and then only with my employers permission which is an odd definition for ownership and which most of the middle class in the US is bound by.
Considering how you ignored the response to you asking
> Eh? Which tech company doesn't give RSUs to fresh grads? Startups of course give options.
I assume you are not here in good faith and just want to argue that all is well and good.
Don’t try and hide behind your second argument when your first point was contested and then act all indignant.
Edit:
Responding to
> Further see: my reply to a sibling in this same thread.
I found your other reply here[1], quoting in case you edit it
> Exactly. The original comment in this thread asked if most tech workers here are part of the capital class themselves. Which was answered by saying that if you're employed by someone else, you are part of the worker class and thus tech workers are part of the worker class.
> Introducing the fact that it's a spectrum and that equity ownership (which a vast majority of people in this industry have) makes you a capital owner is exactly my correction to that.
You are still assuming that most tech workers are given stock grants and have equity. I fundamentally disagreed with that.
I do not believe that the vast majority of people in this industry have been given equity.
Don’t try and pretend that I am wrong because I disagree with you. Show your work or be dismissed.
Every discussion about the 'top 10%' seems to make the underlying assumption that the set of people who fall under that category are consistent. While there are certainly individuals who enter the top 10% (or top 1%) and stay there; there are large numbers of people who move in and out of those categories.
For me personally, I am in the top 10%; but a few decades ago, I was not.
The statistical evidence for your claim is not good. There is certainly a generational effect in that 5 year olds are typically not in the upper decile, simply because they generally have little to no individual wealth or income. But in the USA at least, most people die in the same decile they were born into.
Exactly! And while a well off person may have a memory of a time in their life when they were not doing well (like in school, starting their career etc.) that can be misleading. You tend to end up like your parents more then was true three or four generations ago for many reasons: tax policy, less physical mobility, people tending more to marry with similar levels of education or income.
People debate how much social mobility there is in the US, but it seems pretty clear that the trend has been toward less mobility. The founding fathers of the US did not want to replace one aristocracy with another. Obviously there are some who think the change makes sense-- not me.
Something I've seen a lot is claims about individuals being self made, climbing the ladder from grit and ingenuity and such. Look at Bezos, he's an example of climbing the ladder! Or Zuckerberg!
And when you dig a bit more, you kinda find out this isn't really true?
I mean look at this AI summary of asking "Was Jeff Bezos born into wealth"
> Jeff Bezos was not born into wealth; his mother was a 17-year-old student and his adoptive father was an impoverished Cuban refugee who arrived in the U.S. alone at age 16. However, his maternal grandfather owned a large Texas ranch and later provided roughly $250,000 to help fund the launch of Amazon
Oh so his parents weren't wealthy only his grandparents. That's totally different
You know what my Grandpa gave me? A used car worth about 3 grand. Still amazing, I'm still very grateful to him! But the comparison here is absolutely not in the same league!
And I'm still a fortunate one, because many people get much less than a car from their families
The question is how many people get $250k from their family and lose it all.
Everyone's life is a mix of skill and luck, so to discredit skill, you would need to quantify the luck. An easy example is a lottery winner, a hard example is a Bezos. Any investor with the foresight to see what Bezos could do with grans money, would jump past her in line and give him triple.
You have to have access to far more than $250k to be willing to blow that creating a startup.
I may give my kids $250k for a house to live in. I do not have enough for them to yolo it on a dot com startup.
> The question is how many people get $250k from their family and lose it all
I don't think that really matters? The fact that they even had that shot at all is such an incredible opportunity above people whose family simply cannot afford to even try
US Household Wealth Distribution (Q1 2026, Fed DFA)
Group | Share of US Total Net Worth
------------|-------------------------
Top 0.1% | 14.4%
Top 1% | 31.6%
Top 10% | 67.9%
|
Bottom 90% | 32.1%
Bottom 50% | 2.5%
So, the top 10% holds roughly as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined.
The top 1% alone holds more than the entire bottom 90% minus the upper-middle segment.
To be in the top 10% you would need roughly 1,8 Million $ in assets (that's probably 90% of HN useerbase)
Basically, the bottom 50% are a slave class that doesn't even participate in the economy.
LE: The richest 20% are the only ones powering the U.S. economy, per Moody's Zandi. K-shaped economy all the way.
That's like saying not everyone who finds themselves homeless must stay homeless, as if they can just choose to go buy a house.
>I spent my first 30 years in that group and worked my way out of it.
And what did the job market look like over the those 30 years versus today? You probably weren't competing with infinity AI bots at every resume application.
Not here to steal your thunder and deny your individual success story, but the tired "I pulled myself by my bootstraps" doesn't mean anything to the people who are strugling.
Increases in labor productivity is a curious thing to think about. Do I deserve more wages for using AutoCad instead of drafting paper?
- The amount I'm working hasn't increased. Still an 8 hour day.
- My job honestly is easier than it used to be; certainly less menial.
- Strictly speaking, the education requirement is actually lower. It's easier and a lower bar to learn to become a decent designer in AutoCad than to learn to effectively use old drafting tools (even though the formal four year engineering degree still takes four years).
But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
Salaries aren't about what someone "deserves" or "should earn".
Those in control will try to capture as much of the return as possible. How much value the worker captures is based on their relative power (ability to move to a higher paying employer, scarcity of skillset, laws such as minimum wage, etc).
> Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system.
And I think that by "firms" you really mean some combination of executives and investors/shareholders. That is where the gains have been centralized. Do you really want to argue that management and investors deserve to have more of the gains? What have they done that makes them so much more valuable than similar groups in bygone days?
the argument is productivity gains are increasingly driven by technological advances, which are spurred by capital investment. for example, if a company purchases software that increases their accountants productivity by 5x, should those accountants immediately be paid 4-5x more?
I would contend that the accountant should not - it should flow to who bore the cost of the input (capital owners). however, if you starve labor of those gains, it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function, which implies some level of redistribution by the state is needed.
> it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function
This is becoming less and less true, because now consumption is becoming dominated by asset owners, to the point that a good jobs report is bad news because it means the fed are less likely to drop rates and through that inflate asset prices.
idk, if we look at a lathe, where the factory bought the lathe, this makes some amount of sense (although a closet full of idle lathes isn't worth as much as a factory full of lathe operators making stuff on lathes).
a saas subscription is (per user) probably cheaper than a lathe, easier to stop investment into (no need to resell to recoup some of the loan, just quit paying). A closet full of unused saas subscriptions is worth even less than a closet full of idle lathes.
And yet, these subscriptions make the knowledge worker even more productive (in dollar amounts) than a lathe operator.
obviously a knowledge worker can just subscribe to claude and start building, but building in a vacuum isn't worth a lot more than the closet of saas subscriptions. It's a mutal dependency, and it's the combined efforts of the team that results in this tremendous value add. I wonder if there isn't something there that is above and beyond the capital input and the risks associated with deploying that capital.
But maybe that's an argument for workers of the world uniting and founding their own companies together
If using autocad does indeed make you more productive, then your 8 hours per day of labor generates more value for your employer.
Where the benefits of that end up is one of the most fundamental questions of politics. As you note, there are arguments for it to flow to any combination of several different groups. Deciding how much goes to each group is what politics is all about, in the end.
In practice what happens is that on average the tool-user's wages go up slightly but most of the jobs in the field are eliminated, and the resulting large profit mostly goes to managers and financiers.
Looking at cohorts of workers, automation tools like AutoCad reduce the expertise needed and commodify the job, which reduces leverage and thus per capita wages.
Consider the taxi or unskilled worker examples here:
All to say, as an individual, individuals rationally try to maximize leverage in a negotiation to capture the increased output. But what happens to classes of workers in different jobs varies. My take is that capital appears to be gaining leverage over wages back from many classes of workers, even if some limited classes of expertise are stable or gaining.
I think it is pretty clear that knowledge workers are internalizing the gains that newer and newer tools (and higher and higher rungs on the global economic ladder) have provided them, while at the same time capturing less of the overall gains that are being had.
Basically it's taking fewer bodies to create more value, and that value creation is so intense that even workers getting "ripped off" feel like they are making bank.
Productivity is just aggregate output of the economy divided by the number of people-hours worked. You can argue about if that's a useful thing to measure or if the measurements themselves are accurate or if you should capture more of the output, but at root it's very simplistic. If you can use AutoCAD to generate more drawings than using paper which you (or your firm) sells for the same price per drawing, then your productivity did go up. Is that meaningful? Less certain.
More productive companies earn more revenue and can offer more compensation to try to get better workers. That's why software engineering pays more than many other occupations. It's not because they're nice.
But for this to work, employers have to believe that hiring better workers matters.
Assuming you don't retire during one of the periodic market bust cycles. I think a lot of workers would rather see more return on that increase in capital now.
Thats a good list of questions here’s another good thought provoking line of thinking:
As someone trading labour for a wage should I adjust my productivity to match the tools I’m using? That is to say if I’m using CAD should I bother using the tool to raise my productivity? Or should I just match my old hand drafting productivity rates? Should I attempt to raise my productivity rates with these new tools to meet or exceed the best rates from my coworkers?
What can we do to align my interests with those of my employer?
> Increases in labor productivity is a curious thing to think about. Do I deserve more wages for using AutoCad instead of drafting paper?
Please...
> But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
No, only your boss deserves to gain from you productivity increase, that's obvious.
2% is average. 1-1.5% is considered a slump, while anything over 2.5% is considered a boom. for instance, the post-ww2 boom (1947-1972) averaged 2.9%. at that rate of growth, a country's total output per worker doubles in roughly ~25 years.
The chart you're showing, absolutely reflects the reality of some of the most productive segments of our economy.
Ford now makes more cars, with fewer people. Sears used to have people who took photos, laid out catalogs, opened envelopes (with checks in them).... Amazon has none of that. We replaced switch board operators, with mechanical, then digital switching. More calls routed, fewer people required. go back 45 years and "draftsmen" was a job - replaced by auto cad.
All these industries have seen massive productivity.
Are the people flipping burgers more productive? Plumbers? Welders? Teachers? Nurses? -- to some extent yes, because of technology but not to the same extent as the previous businesses. Anything that qualifies as "service economy" work has not seen the same gains as Ford (see: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/phenomenal-gains-in-manufactu... )
One cause for lack of productivity gains is Baumol's cost disease, which generally affects organizations involving N different people (for N>1) where for one or more reasons N cannot be meaningfully reduced, if at all. Orchestras are the canonical example.
There's a variant of this, however, in activities that are done essentially by 1 person (as is true for most of the examples you mention in your last paragraph). You can improve their individual productivity - more pipes fixed, more joints welded, more patients well-attended to (*) - but in the end you cannot get rid of the individual doing the work in the way automated manufacturing has.
(*) even with a nurse though, this starts to break down for activities where time is a critical part of whatever is being done. Sometimes caring well for a person is primarily a matter of spending time with them, and this is certainly true for teaching as well. In such cases, you cannot make the person "more productive" no matter what technologies you might provide them with.
Good call out, and an interesting case I was unaware of.
It looks like this is another facet of the "bitter medicine" that we're seeing around housing in general.
The first article that I saw pointed out that there is a correlation between productivity and regulation (of construction permitting etc). I would believe that because it has a corollary with "housing starts" (a measure of new construction) and its regional strength in the red/south portion of the country.
> The situation on the ground is unchanged - the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us.
My understanding is that "fixed" costs like rent and groceries have gone up and taken more of people's budgets, while wages failed to catch up with this inflation.
If that's the case, it's markedly different from "situation on the ground is unchanged". I don't know how the overall pie is doing, but it has not grown enough to compensate for the labor share drops shown in the article. The slice on my plate is certainly lighter.
I'm going to go on a limb and say half of the US is not living in abject poverty? Nor can I get behind the idea that quality of life for folks is on the down trend.
I own a Medicaid home care agency in 13 states. We serve low income families and our caregivers, who earn $12-18hr which is higher than minimum wage, absolutely struggle. We have created food banks and housing assistance because even working people are a few sick days or one car repair away from homelessness.
I would encourage you to go work with average Americans in average towns. The facts on the ground are stark and eroding.
Median income in the US is much higher than $12-18/hr, it is about $30/hr. 25th percentile make $20/hr. 10th percentile make $15.58. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.htm
So, the people you are mentioning making 12-18/hr, are literally below 1 in 4, to less than 1 in 10. These are not “average middle class Americans” except maybe in that higher end. These are low wage earners and are far below “average”.
I mean absolutely nothing normative by this statement, nothing about whether this is good or bad or what we should do policy, socially, whatever. But saying someone making below the 10th percentile is average is like saying someone making $75/hr is average.
I would fully get behind us paying service providers far more than we do. To wit, it baffles me when people are upset about how much we allocate to pay for services that go to older people, but then we don't do any effort to make sure the services are provided by younger people. Indeed, we seem to go out of our way to make sure the people providing these services are, themselves, low income. It is baffling.
But even this feels like it is overstating things. You say folks are one car repair away from being homeless. And there is a lot of polling that shows people would struggle to pay for repairs. But full on homelessness? I can only assume that you are describing towns/cities that offer no transport assistance at all, that lands people into being so dependent on a car. I believe it, but I struggle to think this is literally half the nation.
I had an employee that was homeless last week. We were trying to figure out what to do. We’ve been looking into buying apartments to convert them to condos for a first time home buyer program, but the economics are hard to make work. We have considered buying a camper that can move around
The reality is that when 40% of your income goes to rent, how many days of work can you miss before you can’t pay rent? If your car breaks down, how many days will your employer tolerate while you try to get it fixed, assuming you have the money to fix it.
You don’t have to believe me, just look up the state on the percentage of Americans living pay check to paycheck.
The stats on "living paycheck to paycheck" are notoriously rough. With some people that make 300k a year claiming they fit that category.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your given scenario. I actually lost my car when I was younger. Was a rough few months while I got used to commuting without one. And I was lucky to have a roommate that kept my cost of living down.
And I remain a proponent of increasing pay to service providers. As well as finding ways to provide cheaper living conditions. First time home buyer programs are great, but seem unlikely to be relevant for the workers we are talking about? I see the median age of home care nurses in rural areas drifts up to 51-53. Which, granted, I see the median age of first time home buyer is drifting up. I don't think it is as high as those workers, though.
I do think there is a problem here. I just don't think it rises to "half the nation lives in abject poverty."
Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite.
That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make workers so productive that they could afford to buy the cars they make.
A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough to put their own children in child care. So child care fails to revolutionize the world the way the car did.
Innovative companies at the beginning of growth cycles are always generous to employees. Look at all the perks showered on staff for a long time. They are starting to pull that back as they get monopoly market power.
I would agree with you that more capitalism would be better but only if you acknowledge that monopolies are not capitalism; they are the logical end and death spiral in unregulated and unmanaged capitalism.
They are the black hole that a dead star collapse into.
> A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough
They are highly productive but the market doesn't value them. It values the backup forward on a basketball team - an almost completely non-productive job - more than a doctor. It values the owner of a company at $1 trillion, which is obviously absurd.
It's not "absurd"... you're confusing moral value with economic scale.
A $1T founder is rewarded for building a massive system that employs hundreds of thousands of people, moved technological progress forward dramatically, and has positively affected the lives millions.
A doctor provides life-saving care, but they are physically limited to helping one person at a time. A backup NBA forward might not save lives, but their work is broadcast and monetized across millions of screens at once.
Arguing that entertainment is "non-productive" ignores human nature. People gladly pay to be entertained. If sports have no value, do you feel the same way about books, art, and movies?
To get to the Baumol effect, the movie actor can perform once and be seen by millions whereas the theater actor has to perform at least once a night in front of one roomful of people. So the former can get paid more, a lot more.
Probably the highest paid athletes in the world are european soccer players and the thing there is that these salaries can be justified in terms of the value top players bring in a game where being relegated can bring the money train for a team to a halt. You don't see working-class soccer fans complaining about this (they feel the value!) but the owners and many representatives of capital get fuming mad about it.
(Funny, growing up in youth soccer in the US taught me to think of the game as an exercise in Brownian motion where there are too many people on the field who aren't held accountable. It wasn't until I had an argument with a recommender system that couldn't accept that I hated soccer that changed my mind and turned me into one of those sports fans who rolls out of bed Saturday mornings to watch the Premier League that I realized how high the stakes are in the European game.)
In European football, relegation is a zero sum outcome for society: One team is relegated and another promoted. On average, equal numbers of fans are happy or sad.
Acting is about art, which brings up different issues and value. But looking at broadcast sports, the marginal value of doing that work is still zero: If that person didn't play football, someone else would and the entertainment benefit would be the same (excluding the few extraordinary athletes like Messi).
Well in American football we have the problem of teams that lumber on playing terribly for years and years. Like we have three teams in New York state and the Buffalo Bills (upstate) are good and the two in the city (the Giants and the Jets) are awful year after year.
If there was some accountability those teams would be better or would be playing at a different level or not at all. So I'd argue pro/rel is a net plus because it leads to better play. Personally I watching the New York Red Bulls (Major League Soccer) play in person but overall soccer is the US is not up to international standards.
What blows my mind about soccer in the UK is that interest is so great that they can support two leagues below the Premier League and I know there are leagues below those. When I went to the Cornell/Syracuse game which is a legendary matchup that attracts a lot of youth players in the audience I was just thinking of the depth and width of the pyramid of soccer play from Kindergarten all the way to the world cup which is what makes the soccer universe so compelling. (Kinda wish more of us enjoyed college soccer!)
> So I'd argue pro/rel is a net plus because it leads to better play.
From a sports perspective, sure, I agree. I've often thought that the only non-competitive position on a sports team is owner. If anyone else, coach or player, performed for one year like the some team owners do for decades, they'd be out of a job. Owners won't agree to losing their jobs (fire the bottom 5%?), but relegation ... but would the other owners want the biggest market, for example, relegated?
But this discussion is about societal value. Whoever wins and loses, every game is net zero in entertainment value (whatever that is worth): 1 win and 1 loss. Every relegation is net zero: one team promoted, one relegated. Every championship: 1 team wins, another finishes 2nd, etc., no matter who it is.
I understand how the marketplace works, but the value - the contribution, the marginal value - to society doesn't match it.
The $1T business owner doesn't provide nearly that much marginal value to society.
The backup (or starting) NBA forward provides zero marginal value - if they didn't do it, someone else would and the outcome for society, entertainment, would be the same. It doesn't matter how well they play basketball; that doesn't make it more entertaining (with a few extraordinary exceptions). People in the US enjoy college sports, where performance is much worse, as much as professional sports. People root for their 'bad' local team as much as a good one: they do prefer winning, but that is a zero sum tradeoff with the other team's fans.
The income for the two examples are the results of economic distortions.
My kids' teachers provide contribute far more than the latter, and far more than they are paid.
But if that capital accumulation is unchecked it destroys the very market forces such as competition and price setting functions through supply and demand necessary for capitalism to work. So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth.
> So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth.
Why do you assume that Capital class has an ideological loyalty to the capitalist system? If they can get rich without having to compete or do any kind of effort, don't you think they'd prefer that to actually 'working' for the money? Once they've got theirs, do you think they care about what happens after?
Some goes to the capital class, some goes to workers. The Marxist eschatology is that there are pressures that cause the fraction that goes to capital increases over time and breaks the system.
Look at the good deal that the UAW has gotten for auto workers in the system, both US car makers and the union are pretty happy right to keep this system in place and shrink in the face of technological change like electrification not to mention abandoning small cars for large cars that are profitable for now.
(Funny how I often I see "good old boys" driving Asian compacts because they can afford Asian compacts, and I see office workers driving big-ass trucks)
>I own a Medicaid home care agency in 13 states. We serve low income families and our caregivers
There's an extreme selection bias there. If you run an agency that works with low income families you're not going to see a representative sample of the overall population.
Maybe. Unfortunately, what digitaltrees wrote here is ambiguous. It could also be read as this:
Our caregivers serve low income families. Those caregivers, who are our employees, earn $12-18/hr which is above minimum wage. Our employees absolutely struggle. Our employees are the ones using food banks and housing assistance because many are one car repair away from homelessness.
I think the latter interpretation is correct. As in digitaltrees runs a business that does not pay its employees a living wage, who then have to rely on food banks and housing assistance.
We don’t set the Medicaid reimbursement rate so we have no control over wages either. We work to be very disciplined about unit economics and fixed costs so as much money goes to caregivers as possible but if Medicaid pays $22hr you can’t pay $20 because you won’t cover the payroll taxes, workers compensation insurance, or required clinical and other admin expenses.
It’s both. The clients are more impoverished but the caregivers also struggle.
I got into this to build software to lower admin expenses and improve operations for an otherwise under served industry. We are making progress and have supported thousands of people in having stable careers. The horror stories I could tell of other agencies exploiting people due to incompetence or malice are shocking.
I think “abject poverty” is probably overstating the case a bit. I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.
>I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.
That chart doesn't make the case you think it does. Real median household income rising can be explained by things like more dual earner households (more women working since the 70s), more hours worked, etc. The household income can rise while the wages can theoretically remain flat or even fall.
The more relevant statistic is that median real wages have only grown by about 29% across 40+ years (~0.6% per year)
Since 2000, medical care costs have risen by 121.3%, hospital services by 275%, college tuition and fees by 196%, compared to consumer goods by 86.1%. Things like TVs and electronics went way down in costs while the essentials have absolutely skyrocketed. The cheap stuff drags the average down.
You need a lot more than a single graph to argue against the quality of life going down for Americans.
You're right, I was mixing up the related charts. Still, this makes my case even stronger since personal controls for adding more earners to a household. If real median personal income only rose from ~$28k in 1974 to ~45$k today, that's a 60% increase. Median personal income rising by 0.9% every year over 50 years compared to healthcare rising by 3-4% every year since 2000 is not a gap you can ignore. Necessities grew at nearly 3 to 4x the income rate.
So the case that quality of life is trending downward is still completely valid and shows why you can't just point at a single graph and say "see? line go up therefore quality of life fine"
>Still, this makes my case even stronger since personal controls for adding more earners to a household. If real median personal income only rose from ~$28k in 1974 to ~45$k today, that's a 60% increase.
Labor force participation rate for both males and females has basically been flat for the past decade, so the recent discontent about "costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse" is still unsupported. Moreover the 1970s was never an era of stay at home moms. Female labor force participation rate was already 45%, against around 78% for male. It also topped out at around 60% (so basically 15% increase, max) with the rate for males dropping.
Right, except I acknowledged my initial statement was wrong because I was basing it off of household income when you were actually referring to personal income. So why did you spend the effort refuting that?
Median personal income is per individual, which is obvious. After I corrected myself the question then became "did the typical individual's real income keep pace with the cost of the things they can't avoid buying?". The answer is no. And I already showed why.
Yes, but German society is structured to require much less energy, just as Dutch society is structured to use much less land.
If you put Germans whose lives function in a US-style, even just getting to work will be a huge drag.
Misery depends on the structure of society. Here in Sweden I can walk to work. This means that I'm spending zero money on travel to work, and that my travel to work contributes $0 to Swedish GDP. But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.
This is one way in which GDP can be extremely misleading.
I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing.
For example, ,ost of my jobs in EU that me and my gF had required a car to get to work because companies put their offices out in the boonies to save money so walking was not an option, and neither was public transport.
> But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.
GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white collar jobs after Covid proved it's possible and salves the environment
A smaller fraction than in the US. I think most people I know drive.
>I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing.
Well, it isn't. It's about how walkable environments are.
>GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white collar jobs after Covid proved it's possible and salves the environment
Well, they may disagree, but the whole point is the goal of society isn't GDP, since GDP is easy to game with things like creating situation where people are effectively forced to waste energy, drive to work-- that sort of thing.
This doesn't actually seem to be true based on a quick googling, i.e. Germany has somewhat higher median income.
But in addition to the raw numbers, you have to keep in mind that they don't account for cost of living and that different countries account for various services differently, especially health care.
Totally understand that; but it counters the assertion of “abject poverty”. Perhaps relative poverty is a better descriptor but abject poverty is someone living in cardboard tents by the riverbank. Regular poor is living in section eight housing or subsidized housing. I don’t think we have 50% of Mississippians living in abject poverty.
As a gulf state resident, a whole lot of us live in shitty old shotgun houses that have been patched up hundreds of times just waiting for the next hurricane to wipe us out finally.
I would assume this doesn't account for Germans having different healthcare costs which will aboslutely wreck the average American household with how fucked our system has become.
Do you believe about 50% of Mississippians live in abject poverty as put forth by GGP poster? The kind of poverty you saw in Dust Bowl era workers or Weimar era Germany or 3rd would today? Sure people may not be middle class but they are not in abject poverty where they steal chickens, shit on the street, sell their relatives into servitude and barely have two changes of clothing. At least I don’t think so. What those people live would be middle class for counties where there is lots of abject poverty.
People watch too many influencers and lose track of reality -it’s not all Beverly Hills and Kardashians and Real Wives of X-town everywhere. That’s fantasyland.
I find it hard to believe 50%, but we are not doing well down here. Homeless populations have increased massively and the average cost of a single bedroom apartment has gone from $500-1150 in my area since I moved here in 2008. Meanwhile the minimum wage is still $7.25/hour up from $5.50/hour in the 2000's.
Gentrification has also bought up a lot of the older areas and created what feels like faux poverty aesthetic gated apartments and over priced eateries with random shit sprinkled in like Axe throwing places. (Please someone where did all of these axe throwing places come from)
Things are also different down here because you see a massive loss in land/homes lasting families for generations due to petro-chemical and now data center companies buying up whole towns to bulldoze and built into pollution centers.
I'm seeing a lot more cars with doors, bumpers and windows missing because people just need their scrap heap of a car to continue to get them to work across town. We don't have walkable cities and even homeless people sometimes have cheap bicycles with scrap weedwacker motors bolted on because they can't afford a car or the time to get a license.
Someone else brought up the real truth, a lot of us are living paycheck to paycheck and entirely beholden to how much room we still have on various credit cards to buy food after paying bills. Eternal debt slavery is becoming extremely common.
It's not abject poverty, its just dire circumstances for a huge number of everyday folk.
Okay and what exactly do you get for that income? What are the material outcomes for having a "higher" income than Germany? Because I know very few people that would openly choose to live in Mississippi versus Germany.
The GP claimed that 50% of the US lives in abject poverty. Mississippi our poorest state compares with Germany in terms of median income and Mississippi itself does not suffer from 50% rate of abject poverty. So by extension the US as a whole doesn’t suffer from a 50% rate of abject poverty (begging, trinket selling, selling off relatives, shitting in public, etc.) rates of abject poverty. That’s stuff you’d see in the Great Depression or Weimar Germany level stuff.
Okay so thank you for avoiding the question, once again what does a higher income in the southern US get you that people in Germany don't have?
People want healthcare, they want cheaper housing, they want high quality jobs, they want lower crime. Material outcomes absolutely matter and there is zero evidence to suggest that "high incomes" in the US translate to anything except more blood for corporations to extract.
If you have negative net worth and the bank's money, not yours, is buying your food and housing, you are in abject poverty, just that the system is propping up your survival for a while.
A lot of the US looks like they're doing great but fits into the category above.
Non-poverty would look like:
* You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent
* You make enough money to be on trajectory to save up to pay for your own food, housing, transportation, and medical expenses in retirement when you are physically unable to serve the workforce
> You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent
So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?
> and medical expenses in retirement
You're saying I'm in poverty because I understand and intend to use Medicare?
Medicare is a different thing, the government should be providing medical care for everyone to begin with, regardless of what they make.
My definition is if you need to borrow money to put a roof over your head, at the minimum renting, you're in poverty. There are huge chunks of the US population borrowing money to pay for rent.
If your locality doesn't provide adequate public transit, then a car is a necessity, and the onus is now on the locality's economy to make sure everyone can access that; if your locality doesn't pay high enough to afford that car without borrowing money, then yes, you're in poverty. Alternatively, the locality can choose to provide adequate, safe public transit, and the bar of poverty would change.
Most of the US doesn't think this way because they're delusional and have been conditioned to feed the financial system and pay for things with money they don't have.
The homeless number under estimates people with unstable housing that aren’t on the streets.
I assure you that when your basic housing and nutrition are uncertain and missing even a few days of income will result in cascading effects of hunger and homelessness, the underlying stress is overwhelming.
It doesn’t have to be this way, we don’t let bullies steal all the toys on the playground and destroy the very ecosystem that they want to have fun in, why are we letting capital accumulate in the hands of the most effective capitalists at the risk of destroying the very markets that let them succeed.
I say that as a capitalist, if we lose the system because we allow unchecked Monopoly and wealth concentration, we won’t get it back.
I agree with all those things, but if we start making up numbers and definitions we're at risk of undoing actual progress.
Maybe it feels good to say "actually everyone is a victim of capitalism", but it muddies real necessary work when it comes to determining whether to prioritize how resources need to be allocated between a disabled person living on the streets vs a graduate student who is currently just a little underwater on their credit card payments.
That’s a reasonable perspective. I would ask though, whether the fear of muddying the discussion is weaponized to create the impression of complexity, a broad range of intractable causes that lead to the conclusion that any solution is futile. The forces that benefit from the status quo deploy this quite effectively
The BLS and Federal Reserve both have data showing that the median American household has >$1,000 left over every month after all ordinary expenses, including housing, healthcare, and iPhones.
Any definition of "abject poverty" that includes a comfortable lifestyle and $12-15k excess income every year is not a serious definition.
"should" is a pretty woolly concept. "should" we have to work at all? UBI proponents don't think so, and that apparently that has 45% support. What's hopefully obvious is that not being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage is a far cry from "abject poverty".
I'm asking you the question because a statement like 50% of [population] is making a claim to some notion of what they expect society to look like
you introduced the benchmark "not being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage", though I would expect a modern day society that makes any claim to be wealthy to be able to have above 50% of it's population to be able to support something like that as that would indicate they can support a small family
You're saying that's not a good benchmark, so I'm trying to understand:
1) Do you have a different benchmark?
2) Is your key complaint that being unable to own a 2 bedroom house doesn't mean that individual or family is in "abject poverty"? In which case fair, though I would ask what does mean abject poverty for you?
It seems like you're saying 2, but I want to be sure
>In which case fair, though I would ask what does mean abject poverty for you?
The exact number is heavily contested[1], so I know better than to provide my own. That said, the official poverty lines are a pretty good place to start, and it's pretty safe to say is that whatever the line for "abject poverty" actually is, "2 bedroom apartment on 1 person income" is pretty far away from that. That claim doesn't require me to provide a specific poverty line.
In addition to that being obviously different from the line to “abject poverty”, it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken…
> it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken
Either the Western world allows people the financial and real estate resources to have children in the next 5 years or we're all fucked. The tail end of the boomers enters retirement in 10 years and while millennials can take care of the boomers, eventually we will need to be taken care of, and for that millennials need to have children now as long as we still can.
The United States doles out >$30K/year in welfare spending for each person (not household, each person) under the poverty line. And that's just HUD/SNAP/Medicaid. The idea that any significant portion of the US is living in "abject poverty" (let alone half!) is hysterical in every sense of the word.
It's actually far better than that! When people hear "poverty rate", they think "the percentage of people living in poverty". That's not what the census data on poverty is reporting, though. The census data is based on income only. It excludes in-kind welfare (Food Stamps, HUD, and Medicaid) and even excludes some welfare that is paid out in cash (like refundable tax credits). In other words, the census data is reporting that 10% of Americans earn under the poverty line. The number living under the poverty line is far, far lower.
Does being poor cause mental health issues, or are mental heath issues a cause of poverty... The answer here clearly better access (read free) to mental heath care, and it wont have the impact one would think (see the UK data).
> Look at other stats like rising infant mortality
The thing is we changed how we collect this data, to something that would be considered bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/13/maternal-mo... - There are tons of criticism on how we collect this data, they are valid, if you dont like this source, find another its a mess of our own creation.
> dropping IQ etc.
The largest root cause is that people spend too much time on their cell phone dumbing themselves down. Think about that one... no one feels the need to elevate themselves, they are happy to spend time on what amounts to leisure. Would you have sympathy for the person who gets fired cause they chose to play 18 holes of golf 5 days a week rather than do their job?
You seem to be arguing that people are poor because they have mental health issues or are otherwise to blame.
The first article you site contradicts that position.
I would also argue that regardless of the cause, society should provide mechanisms to take care of people. Just like we don’t blame people for crop failures, hurricanes, fires or other catastrophic health issues, and instead have insurance, fire departments, etc. poverty is a consequence of social policies. We should strive to create social policies that have less inequality because they are more stable, safe and consistent with what everyone would want if they didn’t know what role they would occupy.
"Listen folks, it's no big deal if you can't afford rent or to purchase a house. Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket. Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"
Because we as a society have drastically changed how we use housing: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/more-than-a-q... -- Multi generational housing was a thing. Having roommates was a thing... the premise of "golden girls" would be lost to a modern audience, because cohabitation is dead. The premise of "bosom buddies" would get canceled for its insensitivity, but no one would understand because boarding houses are all but gone.
Building every one in the world an American style house, would cripple the globe. Concrete, Sand, Copper, Wood are going to become massive problems long before we get close to getting the job done.
> Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket.
You think that vacation homes are causing the housing crisis? Are eroding wages elsewhere? The industry of these locations is TOURISM, and a fair bit of it is international. (Not Nantucket).
It's not like whaling is going to make a comeback to make Nantucket a viable place to live again.
> Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"
Plenty of Americans look at musk and say "lets eat the rich" ... the problem is that the rest of the world has those same hungry eyes for us.
It absolutely is relevant to the discussion. Many Americans are ungrateful and envious of the Americans wealthier than them, in spite of the fact that their own living standards are still far far better than the majority of humans on the planet. And some of those hypocritically think that the wealth of richer Americans belong to them, but would never consider giving their own wealth to people across the globe who are poorer than them.
If you’re only complaint is the word “abject”, I encourage you to try to live on anywhere from $7 to $15 an hour, in a part-time job that doesn’t guarantee week to week how many hours you’ll get.
My room mates all lived on slightly above minimum wage with part time hours. They were not in abject poverty. They were just plain poor. They still had cars, phones, video games, food, water, shelter. They each had an ACA plan heavily subsidized and probably were eligible for other welfare but didn’t use it as far as I am aware.
This is quickly going to devolve into 'nobody suffers unless their suffering as at least as bad as the worst suffering that exists', so let's just go ahead and get that out of the way and move on to something less pointless.
Yep. A lot of such people use words in order to elicit the reaction a legitimate use of said words would get, because they don't want the usually more muted reaction/attention using the correct word would get.
But you could. There is no law of the universe that is going to stop you. Words are something randomly made up by humans.
> it's just plain wrong.
Again, words are completely made up, so it can't really be wrong in the traditional mathematical sense. It could be misinterpreted, perhaps. Of course that is dependent on how you've chosen to randomly make up "wrong".
Have you looked up the definition of abject poverty? It is "the most severe and hopeless form of human deprivation". It's the subject of the conversation, how is that pointless?
While you are able to look up someone's definition of abject poverty, the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment. It is unlikely you can look up his definition (before he replies to those who have asked for the definition in force).
If only their definition matters then their only purpose in this thread is to derail the conversation, or in other words railroad everyone else out because only they can be right.
People responding reject that, because if you're not being specific, you're not making an argument, you're just here to be an asshole.
Since you've made this point, I've gone ahead and reported that comment.
Suppose their definition for abject poverty is: having an income equal to or below the median income. Yes, they would be right. Is it a problem that they are right?
However, you would also be right in agreeing that having an income equal to or below the median income equates to half the population, so you are wrong to think that only they can be right. Of course, that assumes you have used my definitions for these terms and not your own. It is likely that, once we are updated with your definitions, that you were right all along. What are your definitions for the terms you have used?
That's the beauty of discussion. You don't need to guess. You can ask!
> the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment.
This is absolute nonsense. We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other. You don't get to just handwave baldly incorrect statements as "well maybe he just has a different personal definition" without basically rendering literally all conversation moot and pointless.
"Yeah, I know he said 2+2 is 5, but you don't know he defines 5" is just as patently silly.
> We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other.
Common doesn't mean ever-present. In practice, it is impossible for everyone to converge on a shared understanding for all terms. There are provably many people in the world who have never even heard the term "abject poverty" before. They cannot possibly understand what the term means to you. Fundamentally, "abject poverty" can only mean in that comment what the author believes it means. That may overlap with your understanding, but it also may not. We can also prove that he is not a mind reader and thus cannot tune it to your understanding. He is limited to his understanding and his understanding alone.
A good faith actor who believes there may be a discrepancy in understanding will seek clarification. That is what a discussion forum is all about. If one does not want to participate in discussion, why be here?
dozerly. "We have one of the worlds most prosperous economies, and half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing." Hacker News, 30 Jun. 2026, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734916
That doesn’t logically follow. If the claim is 1% control 80%.
And the counter argument is wealth is different than income the implication is that wealth inequality is 1) lower than income inequality and 2) more important for some unspecified reason.
But if wealth inequality is more extreme then that means 1% control GREATER than 80% of wealth. So point 1 is false. And point 2 is most likely irrelevant because greater concentration likely means whatever harm from one category would track the other category
>The linked view of the chart is distributed by income percentile, the title is "Wealth by income percentile"
That's still measuring wealth, not income. The correct statement to draw from the chart is that top 1% by income have nearly as much wealth as the bottom 80%.
It's amazing how few people are willing to admit there is a problem. Spend 45 minutes driving around the state I live in talking to random people and it's painfuly obvious this is reality that some. I suppose it's mostly epstein sympathizers who are pushing the narrative that everything is perfect and nothing needs to be done.
>the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us
I don't see where the article made that claim. Are you making it yourself and can you support it? That sounds like something that would happen when technology improves. What the article does do, is pose a question that it never answers: "When the labor share falls, it means that productivity, prices, or both [which?] are growing faster than wages."
Unit cost on labor has increased at a more or less steady pace this whole time. Ergo, it's not so much that labor is decreasing as other things are increasing faster.
It's hard to argue that technology is increasing labor productivity an order of magnitude faster than it was in the 50s. It's more likely something else in the dataset (returns on capital/rent) is exploding in value.
Is "unit cost on labor" the same as "the amount of labor being generated per person"? I don't believe it is, especially so in the context of the article's question which I raised.
That overall drop in share of income since 2000 is related to the "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot warned about in 1992:
"It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care, that's the most expensive single element in making a car, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south."
While Perot was warning about NAFTA, the jobs did go elsewhere: China and other countries with cheaper labor. Globalization led to labor competition, which increased the supply of workers.
Meanwhile, companies captured the value of the increased supply of workers. More cheap labor = more production, for a world that had latent demand for cheaper output. It ended up a net benefit for businesses (capital owners), and overseas workers. This is at least partially if not significantly where the growing gap between wage growth % and GDP growth % comes from.
The macro economists were right that globalization would be more efficient overall for the world, economically. But that came at the expense of the US labor that saw its wage growth eroded as a consequence.
>the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed
im not really understanding what you mean. i dont get how labor is generated, in particular. do you mean to say the amount of total hours dedicated to labor per person or something else?
he's referring to labor productivity, e.g., the economic value produced per unit of labor input. it also _has_ changed significantly, as seen here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
I have a similar PoV. I think rent seeking without sufficient checks is one of the biggest problems in our economy.
But the underlying problem that people aren't paid enough is still true. Outside a few fields, most people are underpaid. It's even more stark when measured against productivity increases during the same time periods. That wealth went somewhere. It wasn't to most people.
People have a tendency to get upset when they realize these kinds of things.
From outside it doesn't look like not being paid enough. It looks like affordability problem. Prices in general are too high.
Rents in general are part of this. Both for housing and commercial property. Somehow getting profit from both rent and appreciation is the goal of the system.
Well that is what population voted for and choose not to overthrow system for so maybe they deserve it.
Underlying rent are other things going up - property taxes, input costs like labor and materials, and insurance.
While we must be mindful of greed and abuse, we need to include all underlying costs before just assuming people are cranking up rents. I'm not a landlord but I own property and the costs are gotten vicious lately. Labor is expensive, materials are insane, energy costs, and now insurance are suffocating. And in states with high property taxes, watch out.
Energy is one variable. But have things gotten less efficient as things keep going up in prices? Is more labour needed to produce the same? There is stuff like regulation forcing more expensive things. But in general if there was efficiency gains things should keep the same price or drop. Somehow this isn't really happening very well.
But my thesis really is that these things are not underlying the rents. But rents are actually underlying these costs. And well in general the rent seeking economic process build on ever growing valuations of everything.
Your theory is just that - theory. Just talk to someone who owns property, or do the research. Insurance costs, Up, energy, Up, when something breaks, it costs more to fix it. It's basic input cost math.
I don't know what 'efficiency gains' means here. Maybe you're thinking of car production or software development. Insurance goes up due to climate change, due to insurance companies taking advantage of a poorly regulated environment, whatever other reasons. Energy goes up due to world events, due to more people, due to extreme weather. Labor costs go up due to inflation.
It feels as thought the 'rent is too damn high' crowd needs an enemy, and the enemy is landlord. And again, not a landlord, but I'm getting bitten by high costs of keeping property. I didn't even talk about the property taxes.
If I WERE a landlord, I'd either pass it along to the tenant as higher rent, or I'd sell the damn thing.
Times are getting worse and the landlord class is an unnecessary middleman.
And again, the headline is the labor share of income is at an 80-ish year low. The landlord class grew too big. We want many of them to be forced out of the business either by law or by economic loss forcing sale.
A home is a fundamental human right. Maintaining rental profits in the face of economic hardship is not.
Restaurant operations is one of the places where it's most clear the rent is the biggest problem.
You can say restaurant workers need to be paid more, and ok sure, but where is that money coming from? You pay labor, food suppliers, rent, utilities, taxes, and... where exactly is the money to pay workers more coming from?
With the number of empty storefronts in my city (not to mention restaurant closures) it's clear owners aren't making money hand over fist or there would be many more restaurants.
Restaurant workers in my experience are more likely to go to more restaurants and they can't because... their rent is too high and the price of food at restaurants is too high.
The common denominator with all of it is money being sucked away from people doing work and people hiring work by... rent seekers.
The "labor share of income" is exactly this. How much money is getting sucked out of the rest of the economy to prop up the do-nothing class. Retired people whose retirement investment was selling a house for much more labor than they bought it for and real estate owners doing as little as they can to maximize income they aren't earning.
If you build plenty of houses, they become affordable. The latest Affordable Housing is mostly gov-enabled scams, at least in San Diego. They are being made for greater costs than the luxury housing since the funding is guaranteed. Then the same developers are incentivized to keep all rates high by building less.
I don't want affordable housing mandated, I want the opposite. Force builders to build 1500 sq ft three bedroom apartments. Flood the market at the top end with SPACE and then tax vacancies of these spaces aggressively.
This sets a price cap, makes these high density spaces affordable for people who want to live their whole lives there and not just their single 20's, brings diversity into communities and drops the floor out of the prices on these single occupancy closets going for $2000 per month.
Just tax corporate owned vacancy. In a slump there will be apartment buildings that are mostly empty because they refuse to lower the rent as lowering rent triggers property re-valuation.
Office buildings sit mostly empty for the same reason.
Tax the owners to punish the bad bets and eternal growth expectations of banks to force them to use the space to the benefit of the community or be forced to sell when they run out of money. Use zoning laws to prevent the destruction of units to avoid taxes.
We already don't have enough housing and you want to increase the cost of entry to build? This would just reduce competition and new builds even further. Hard to see this kind of policy coming out ahead if any increased utilization of existing buildings is cancelled out by the lack of new ones.
No, I want to crash the price of real estate, bankrupt the incumbents, and realign incentives to be focused on resident quality of life.
Percentage return on investment has nothing to do with the basis. Investors will have to serve a lot more people to get the same absolute return. The percentage return won't change all that much for actually building and operating. The year over year growth in valuation and rent is what needs to go (buildings go through several sets of hands over the first decade or so anyway).
repeated efforts to develop "dwelling units" on a large scale have collapsed in corruption. There are financial players who are very aware that there are vast amounts of monthly monies at play. This is not unique to the USA in fact it is a repeated theme in the capital economies.
The US Federal Housing and Urban Development Department was intimately involved in the Savings and Loan collapse of the late 1980s. It was punted around and repeated in the 1990s, but the stock market gains of the late 1990s diluted the news in public. That phase culminated with a dot-com bubble collapse and ultimately, the 2007 dollar credit crisis. Leveraged purchases of real estate were part of that financial soup. Many of the players from that time were "boomers" and their seniors, so living memory of those circumstances are now fading. There are many, many non-fiction books about these topics.
I don't know which people you're referring to, but the conclusion is pretty clear: the _share_ of the total pie captured by labor is shrinking. Productivity is increasing, but capital is capturing all, or almost all, the benefits of that increased productivity and economic growth.
AI is going to further exacerbate this inequality.
Since 2000 the biggest economic change is software. While most workers doing physical jobs have only made themselves slightly more efficient (or maybe mass immigration has maybe even reduced efficiency in some sectors), some workers (tech workers) have made themselves hundreds or thousands of times more efficient and captured the gains as equity (either in their own startup, their job, etc...). The positive is that growth overall has still lifted living the average living standard.
Benn Jordan just released a new video proposing that we are not in “late stage capitalism” and instead we are currently an offshoot of capitalism called “leverageism”.
In the video he describes how when people like Elon Musk get to the level of wealth that they are at, it becomes far more beneficial for them to take from (or stunt) the spending power of lower classes than it is to add to their own net worth dollar figure - simply put, the former moves the needle far more in their favor than the latter.
Definitely explained the idea of our slice remaining the same while the overall pie around us is getting larger.
"Is this decline a distinct change from the recent behavior of the labor share in the U.S.? Along the two key dimensions we investigate, our answer is no. <later> ... and they provide little evidence that it will evolve differently from past episodes."
This conclusion seems to be against "this time is different" arguments. Should we be generally encouraged by similarity to past declines pre-2000 or bearish and think that there is more drop to come like the 2000-2007 and 2007-2019 periods they graph out?
I guess there is no way to predict other than check back in after time passes.
The submitted title is a bit sensationalist given the article’s conclusion:
> Is this decline a distinct change from the recent behavior of the labor share in the U.S.? Along the two key dimensions we investigate, our answer is no. First, the labor share’s trajectory post-COVID broadly follows the cyclical patterns observed in earlier recessions, with a decline during the recovery phase that mirrors historical dynamics. Second, the decline in the labor share since COVID is driven primarily by within-industry changes rather than shifts in economic activity across sectors. Taken together, these results suggest that the post-COVID decline follows the same cyclical patterns as earlier recessions and is driven by the same within-industry forces, and they provide little evidence that it will evolve differently from past episodes.
What I find more interesting is the sharp drop around the early 2000s
It's not necessarily limited to the ultra wealthy, but outside of a few key areas (as someone mentions, those profiting off of the inflationary spike, those in the real estate market, etc) it is more or less the case, yes.
im going to be controversial and say no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire.
anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor (but not vice versa, you can work as a robber or corporate lobbyist). from line cooks to wall street ceos to open source volunteers and stay at home moms who dont get paid but still work. landlords and executives count because management is labor too.
if your income comes from a trust fund or owning properties that you dont manage thats a passive reward for doing nothing. you are not productive. you are a parasite living on the back of everyone else and expecting indefinite rewards for a fixed amount of work you or your parents did years ago.
> no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire
No one should start a business and pay salaries to their employees instead of themselves?
What if I see that a biotech startup is working on mRNA cancer vaccines, and I want to invest in that? And then it pays off and I make money off of it?
Not American here. I know a couple of people who took out a second mortgage to buy a small appartement to rent out when mortgages rates were at 1%. They probably have €300k in equity in both the primary and secondary home. And around €600 in income from the rental. I do not consider that wealthy.
I would describe that as having invested in an appreciating asset (like stocks), and their main income comes from the gains of the property prices as they go up in value. Moreover, they leveraged themselves via loans to acquire income even faster.
These gains might be realized at any point if they're willing to pay taxes for them.
Having lots of money but choosing not to spend it doesn't make you any less wealthy.
The annoying/sad/infuriating thing is the ultra wealthy don’t have “income.” Technically, according to IRS rules, much of what they experience (housing, food, etc) should be classified as income. But their lawyers and accountants help them keep that looking quite low.
I used to think this - but when I talked to a tax lawyer friend and we walked through the steps they take, usually they're just deferring taxation that does end up getting paid by an entity eventually.
Not the commenter you replied to, but one thing to note is that capital gains tax (at least in the context of investments in corporate equities) is applied after corporate taxes. Profits and reinvested earnings are taxed as profits, and they're two of the key components to valuing an equity.
As such, when comparing income tax and capital gains, you should add the impact of corporate taxes. Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.
> Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.
You've been sold some BS. Usually this is because you're required to take a "reasonable" wage for your role in a company. Otherwise I guarantee you every independent contractor out there (among others) would be operating in a way that made 100% of their income business profit, rather than wages, as it has enormous tax advantages. Approximately everybody tries to find out the least they can take as wage income without pissing off the IRS, and sets their "wage" to whatever that is.
Many locales have laws that do not allow remuneration above the 'reasonable wage', to prevent tax circumvention by having employers spread wage payments across multiple family members of employees, but I am not familiar with any jurisdiction with a minimum reasonable wage law or regulation. Could you please link some source for the claim that business owners are required to accept a 'reasonable wage'?
Yes, that is intended to disallow officers from avoiding taxes by being compensated via ‘loans’ and other means. I can’t find any case where dividends or buybacks were found to be violations of that rule. https://cpataxteam.com/blog/s-corp-owners-are-you-paying-you...
Do the math for yourself. Paying corporate taxes on profits, then dividend taxes on what gets paid out is not a savings versus paying income+payroll tax (which comes from money that is treated as an expense at the corporate level).
There are more taxes than federal income and corporate taxes. State taxes and especially the ~15% of wages that go to FICA also matter (the topic was small businesses, so presumably the owner's not making so much more than the FICA limit that this becomes negligible).
This would be my personal preference, as I believe that voters often overlook the impact of corporate taxes, and there are just too many (different) taxes.
If the income was earned through dividends, maybe this would be a reasonable argument. Most of the time stock just gets bought and sold by investors rather than the company itself though, so it's not clear why corporate tax would have anything to do with this.
Sure, the stock price should somehow be tied to the actual value of the company, but for a while now it's been mostly indistinguishable from a Ponzi scheme other than a few companies that do sometimes decide to buy back some stock, which makes it slightly less sketchy but if the value is from the company buying it back, it's a lot closer to debt or a bond, which is not at all how anyone treats it.
I agree that in a bull market, many corporations are not purchased and sold at book value. That said, we are on the largest bull-run in history, so we shouldn’t treat this as the norm, and base all our long-term decisions on the current situation.
So if I'm understanding correctly, your argument is that it doesn't make sense to make people who make more money pay the same rate of taxes as regular people do because we should ignore the fact that they've been doing it for longer than ever before?
I am not saying that one party paying taxes means that no counter-party should. I am just saying that the impact of different structures should be accounted for.
If they donate the wealth to their own foundation to continue to hold close and control, it doesn't get taxed. If they borrow against the wealth at low interest rates until they die and the basis is stepped up ("buy, borrow, die"), it doesn't get taxed. Certainly, deferment is a component, but there are obvious examples of the very wealthy operating in a manner to avoid taxes entirely when they're able to (realizing the benefit of the wealth without having to realize a taxable event). Trust stacking is a recent fad as well, although I don't have enough data to say whether it is a material concern from a tax revenue perspective.
The cases you're talking about are all delaying taxation, not eliminating it. Eventually someone has to draw that wealth - the foundation has to spend for public benefit to be eligible for 501(c)3 status, for instance.
I also don't think they addressed how borrowing against the wealth doesn't require any immediate taxes (and is often low interest, given how being a billionare means you get more favorable terms). There's nothing stopping someone in that position from just deferring taxes on the money they currently have, borrowing against it, and then investing that to turn into more money with taxes deferred even further so that they can use the proceeds to pay the previous deferred taxes and keep the difference.
That requires their investments to keep going up in value. That doesn't last forever, the assets that people borrow against eventually need to be sold to pay back that loan. When they sell to make payments, those are taxable events.
If investments didn't grow at a faster rate than interest, why would anyone ever invest money at all instead of putting into a savings account? I don't know why it''s hard to imagine that a large loan with a relatively low interest rate might be able to be invested for more than enough profits to pay off the taxes and the loan with some to spare
I'm not a tax lawyer, but I think if you default on a loan, the collateral changes hands, which is a taxable event for you as if you sold the asset, at whatever value the unpaid portion of the loan was. So you pay tax.
If any significant part of that article is true, I see self dealing that would already be against IRS code. It's just a matter of enforcement. We often already have the laws to solve the problems we identify.
This report is only about wages, so even if the ultra-wealthy reported their real sources of income, they wouldn’t shut up as “labor” the way this defines it.
Capital gains not being considered earned income is simply sensible use of terminology to categorize different ways of amassing purchasing power. For example, in order to carry out the linked analysis.
Not at all. The real estate share of income is probably at its highest among a lot of people who belong to the non-labouring class, but are far from ultra wealthy. But it's nice to have a scapegoat, isn't it?
If you belong to the 'non-laboring class' you are by definition the ultra wealthy. It's wild how much people are willing to slide goalposts to make themselves feel better.
While about 50% to 60% of the adult U.S. population are active W-2 wage earners at any given time, the percentage that relies on labor exclusively (meaning they have zero capital income or assets to fall back on) sits right around 40% to 50% of working households.
Capital be praised that capital owners are back on top.
May the low-waged ever be trodden upon and forever know their true place.
Those that died or became disabled during covid are mewling degenerates.
Their cries of 'illness', 'poverty', and 'homelessness' are precisely as useless as the wailing and lamentation of women in their menses, a farcical thing to be dismissed and ignored.
The origin of the word is a bit darker than its meaning, unfortunately. It comes from the Greek word for Uterus. You can kinda fill in the blanks from there as to how it came to its modern meaning.
Are you aware of the irony of complaining about people being hypersensitive while you're overreacting to someone explaining why some people might find a word offensive?
Nah, that's knee-jerk. Don't have a particular horse in this race, just explaining why some people might react this way to the word if they're aware of the history behind it. We as a society can determine whether or not we like certain words in our vernacular.
My point is: who cares about the origin of the word? IMHO, no one should. Unless the word used in a way meant to offend, it's fine. Otherwise you're kind of cultivating offense and over-sensitivity, helping it survive and grow, which helps no one.
It's trickier than that. There's a lot of people who are naturally aware of the history behind the word, and it's tough to remove emotion and intent from that history. Sometimes things bother people, and it's nice to understand why before deciding if you should do anything about it or not.
In particular, people with uteruses can be hyper-aware of the etymology, and I've had several inform me about it in the past, which helped me decide to avoid it.
Bit of a double-edged sword, that. Worker-owned businesses are great, but if you instead make workers minority shareholders, you get... the modern retirement system, and inflated asset prices that benefit the ultra-wealthy far more than common investors.
More accurate to say that the US has been opposed to workers controlling the firms they work for. But the capitalists dangling just enough of a morsel to get the workers to dance 80 hours a week, but without the ability to actually control anything, and without majorly diluting? Chef's kiss.
Every share is a voting share. There are a small number of weird cases (e.g. Meta super-voting shares limited to Zuck), but your statement is broadly false.
I think this is part of a long term development where technology and globalization slowly erode workers bargaining power. Basically you only build a factory in the US if you can keep labour costs low enough and the manufacturing automated enough so that you can still compete with other manufacturing hubs.
Interesting that most of the decline happened in the 2000s. The graph shows a large decline from ~2000 to ~2008 which continues after the GFC before going up a bit in the 2010s. The drop off since COVID is comparatively small.
isn't this the expected/intended outcome of the economic policy we've held for a generation or two?
the capital/labor class gap increases when total returns on capital investment exceed total wages+redistribution to the labor class, and the gap shrinks when that's reversed. the market ~controls the capital gains and labor wages knobs, and society decides where to set the redistribution knob.
the article investigating the post-covid drop and concluding that it's normal is an interesting rhetorical device. on one hand, relief that nothing crazy is happening. on the other hand, disappointment that we've accepted a growing inequality gap as normal. the gap was already at a post-war max going into covid, the floor gave out 20 years earlier and covid was just gas on the fire.
advancements in automation and tax codes that benefit capex over payroll will continue to incentivize business to shift budgets from labor to robots.
I don't have time for a longer comment, but AIUI this is mostly a statistical illusion caused by changes to US tax law- previously income that was attributed to 'labor' shifted over to LLCs/S corps for more beneficial tax rates. The doctor, lawyer, financial advisor, CPA etc. that in past decades would have had his/her income run through a W2 arrangement shifted to becoming a one-person corporation
That said, it's a huge pet peeve of mine when someone makes a statement, and then provides sources to back up that statement, but the actual sources contradict their original statement.
You stated "but AIUI this is mostly a statistical illusion caused by changes to US tax law- previously income that was attributed to 'labor' shifted over to LLCs/S corps for more beneficial tax rates." But then your very first linked article states "First, about a third of the decline in the published labor share appears to be an artifact of statistical procedures used to impute the labor income of the self-employed that underlies the headline measure."
I think there is a huge difference between 1/3 (while still a lot and an important factor) and what you wrote, "mostly a statistical illusion", especially since other substantial factors proposed in that article are things like offshoring.
I'm a bit skeptical that you absorbed these 3 pieces in the time it took you to respond (they are 27, 29, and 63 pages, respectively), but they find a range of effect sizes here- the other two a bit more strongly. I feel comfortable with my original statement, though I suppose there's always room for nitpicking
No, I completely read the first article. It was quite clear in what percentage of the decline in labor's share that it attributed to differences in statistical assessment of sole proprietors. I then looked at the abstracts of the other two. The third one basically completely agreed with the first ("We find that reallocating activity to the form it would have taken prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 accounts for 30% of the decline in the corporate sector labor share between 1978 and 2017."), and that's when I wrote my reply.
Frankly, I don't know how you can call this "nitpicking". In no definition in the English language is "one third" remotely the same as "mostly".
Exactly. Crazy you are getting downvoted for having the most informed comment here. The other aspect of this is the rise of franchisees in America. Previously, the salary of the manager of a corporate store would be measured as labor income. In a franchise, it would be measured as capital income.
People tend to get excited when they can't eat and despite its timidity America is exceptionally well-armed. That sounds cute in a post drone strike world, but if the government attacks its own citizens like that, they'll have a hell of a time defending that position to the rest of the world. Humanity is usually slow on the uptake but eventually settles on "how about you just go fuck yourself" even if the party takes a sec to get going.
Who knows. I think it's better to err on the side of optimism despite the grim outlook.
That has already happened. The entire industrialized world is feudal. Young workers who are experts in their fields working full time can't afford a simple home. Young business owners who employ several people full time can't afford a simple home.
Not much. Early economies relied on mutual trade. I give you X and in return you give me Y. Soon we realized that you cannot always give Y in return immediately, so we invented accounting to keep track of your promise to give me Y at some point in the future. As time went by eventually we stopped caring about getting Y back in return and started taking an interest in collecting the promises themselves (i.e. profit).
Why would someone want to collect promises? That seems rather silly, right? What having a lot of promises gives you is social standing. People treat you differently — better — when they give you their promises. If traditional labor goes away, the economy simply becomes you promising to hold those who have things in the highest regard; to be there as their friend when they call for you to. That is the same modern economy we already have but with less steps.
Yikes. Good to know that labor shares used to rebound after crises, but since the 2000s and the dotcom bubble it has basically been downhill only. So don't expect any of this to get better unless we roll back technology to the last millenium.
It's not the tech but who sees the benefits. The issue at play is the monopolization and concentration of power.
Ie, why can one guy who is insanely wealthy due to stock valuations take loans against that to pull various levers of power. We didn't elect him, we need a way to control that outsized influence.
Not technology - that's only downstream of politics.
No political administration in my lifetime (!) has made policy decisions against the interests of tech monopolists. The closest we got was Lina Kahn's FTC.
> So don't expect any of this to get better unless we roll back technology to the last millenium.
Where do I sign this petition?
In general, though, I'd be perfectly fine with time being frozen in ~August 2001. Was it perfect? No. Was it better than where we are and looks like we're heading? Yes. Without a doubt.
Technology isn't the problem. The problem is the generation in governing power through the last 2 decades has no problem burning down the country's future to maintain lavish retirement funds for themselves.
I think it's more nuanced than that. There surely are plenty of cases where that is the case, but it's also a natural effect of hyperfinancialization, which many really do believe to be a "net positive" for the stability it brings. There's also the natural tendency of consolidation and centralization of power, and the natural counter-balance to that has been suppressed. Then you have legislative incompetence, the general failings of scientific governance aggregating over time, and many other structural flaws that are deeply seated and long-running.
We shouldn't just be pointing at the (very much real) stupid greed, there are many rotten components occurring simultaneously.
What happens if large cohort of Boomers retires and stop working, instead living on their savings? Labor share of income drops. If you remove this effect, the labor share of income is flat - confirmed by last week's analysis in The Economist.
According to the article, automation (including software) and other technology "advancements" are important factors.
I think it's becoming clear that we are reaching a point where UBI must be debated in Congress subsidized by something that doesn't wreck economic growth and probably doesn't target capital investment.
Are there hollistic analysis? I generate income with my labor, but I also save in retirement and investment accounts. On analysis like this that we typically see, are these two things competing? Are we really just seeing a rise in retirement savings?
As a hardware founder, I’ve seen the opposite until very recently. Labor cost has been going up much faster than inflation, at lease in hardware assembly.
Is there a reason to think this is anything more than increased productivity? And that therefore the case has to be made that labor, more than capital, should benefit from that increase? I’m not saying that argument can’t or shouldn’t be made, just saying that “it was different before!” Isn’t the best argument.
The longer I participate in the economy the more it starts to feel like the end stages of a game of monopoly. There is nothing left to own unless you already are wealthy and the only way to get ahead is luck.
The 2 main differences between our economy and Monopoly is that 1) in ours, some people start with properties and more money in hand and 2) a Monopoly game takes less time to end.
The most interesting takeaway I see in the labor share percentage graph is the trend that labor share increases into the recession. Post recession share trends down for a bit.
How much of the trend is due to employment trends vs. printing money for the wealthy to get their hands on it first(and profit) post recession?
Ha, you just reminded me of something that I read a long time ago. Some history book which relayed a story from some part of islamic world from centuries ago.
A king goes hunting but fails to catch anything. Hungry, he goes to a nearby village. He enters the inn and orders some quail eggs. After finishing the meal, he goes to pay. The innkeeper tells him that the meal costs ten gold coins.
"I did not know quail eggs were so rare in these parts," says the king.
"They are not," replies the innkeeper, "but kings are."
> Parking and speeding tickets should have income brackets, at least
AFAIK in some countries this exist but my case is more capitalist oriented. Rich people obviously can pay more since they keep accumulating wealth. It is an obvious sub optimal pricing since the low and even middle class rent/mortgage and other services quickly approaching the most they can pay so they can’t actually save and make wealth.
A long time ago I was working for a mid tier founder up in Oregon.
Pipe dream of a startup, no customers, no product. Money and vision, but no direction and the main problem was that nobody would ever tell him "No" (me included) - to everyone's great detriment.
He would certainly fail at this endeavor...
He was the main investor, after all.
At some point we brought on web marketing help - he knew people at Nike. To my surprise, they actually partnered with us - Nike! He also co-owned a web design agency in Portland, so I started working with designers and marketers there.
When I would travel there, he always set me up in the same hotel. Turns out (a year later), he owned it. He owned the damn laundromat next door, too, because it was adjacent to the apartment complex he owned.
After literally 1 beer, we were now going to do a live, in person event in Portland - he knew people and could make it happen. He owned the building where the event would take place.
At the event he started asking if I'd ever leave San Francisco, if I liked Portland. We started talking about rent and stuff.
I find out he's a landlord there - owns several single-family homes (with awful cyclone fencing) and has tenants around Portland. He starts telling me prices etc. Asks me what people are paying in SF. We both laugh over how expensive SF is - sun shafts illuminating our amber beer glasses as we drink to... Idk what.
What happened was I found out that he was rich as fuck, and owned the god damn town, and everything else. His startup was a joke and failed - but who cares, it was a frame in a movie. I cared about it more than he did.
Yes by design. Basically just by designating one part of the economy as non-productive consumption economy, and the other part as production economy, they create the justification for inflation - so that the government can have free money and take it from the stupid consumers by decreasing their wealth a little every year should they choose not to spend it, and give it (sorry, invest) to the nice productive entrepreneurial capitalist part of enconomy who will somehow reinvest it allegedly (read: mostly buy up shit the former half needs and sell it back to them at markup), the system has a direct wealth transfer mechanism that points from the poor to the rich, it couldn't be any more shameless and obvious if they tried.
I wonder if labor itself will become an anachronism in the age of AI. Perhaps the future economic landscape will be dominated by capital because everyone will own capital. You will command a small army of agents to do whatever you want. You will no longer need to work for someone. You own small businesses far more than you could possibly operate in the pre-AI era and they will mostly operate autonomously with minimal direction and some guidance from you.
Assuming your labour contribution to these agents is 'minimal':
Why would you own them, instead of some well capitalized billionaire?
To the extent that you do have capital, why do you assume that your 'minimal direction and guidance' would outcompete a full time specialist working for that billionaire?
Assuming agent costs keep declining exponentially as they have over the last three years, why would everyone not own some agents? It's not like the number of agents is capped and the billionaires hoard all of them. I imagine it would be more like smartphones, where there were only 50 million smartphones after the iPhone was first released in 2007 and now there are something like three billion. They become more accessible and plentiful over time. Same thing should apply to agents.
And in this world of abundant agents, what advantage does the billionaire have exactly over the non-billionaire? Their employees are less motivated than owner-operators, and they no longer have the scale advantage that large corporations used to have. Each individual can effectively operate like a large corporation, because each individual can have their own large synthetic workforce at very low cost. The scarce resource here then becomes uniquely human insights and real motivation, which entrepreneurs are always going to have more of than employees.
I'm hoping it's likely the powerful cannot monopolize agents. If open models are easy to obtain, and every homestead has solar and large batteries, everyone can routinely charge their robots like Seven of Nine plugging into her Borg alcove. As long as they have the right to repair them, and a monopoly can't fleece you with robot maintenance!
It's basic economics; larger firms become progressively less efficient for the same reason that communist command economies are inefficient, because there's no internal price signals to guide resource allocation. So there's a natural cap on how big a firm can get (in information theoretic terms, there's a hard limit on the amount of information a centralized structure can process effectively).
We live in a world with a severe housing crisis - not shortage, as there are usually enough units, people just can't afford them.
One would assume the difficulty of building housing has gone down with the general progress of technology - and if all else fails, you can just do what they did 50, 100 years ago where affordability was far less a struggle - people, who had less income in real terms spent proportionally less on it.
So did society devolve that an unit of industrial output has become more expensive? Or did money and resources just go into a parallel 'rich people economy', that has created a constant drain on the resources of average people?
Housing is exceptionally vulnerable to capture because it is immobile. AI on the otherhand should see its cost continue to plummet due to competition. Per token costs have already fallen exponentially over the last three years.
I'm not sure if this addresses the point you're trying to make though. If not, please clarify your argument for me.
this is relatively unremarkable for those with an understanding of wage, labor, profit, price and capital.
capitalism will always seek to reduce labor cost. during the epoch of neoliberalism it achieved great strides in this by reducing labor power through union busting by both thatcher and reagan in the UK and US respectively. it has also effectively curtailed any increase in the minimum wage for nearly 20 years as well as reduced protections, regulation and prosecution for wage theft and overtime pay violations which it maintains as exclusively as civil matters while ensuring theft itself from a merchant in turn is always a criminal matter through the primacy of private property.
to learn more i recommend reading Marx's "Das Kapital," albeit its rather academic. Engels "wage labor" is also a good read to understand why housing is so persistently unaffortable but helps to understand why any other good or service slowly becomes so as well.
The problem is we are one step beyond capitalist exploitation as described by Marx - basically the surplus which fatcat industrialists extract from the laborer does not really exist - you have to compete in the market with others who do the same, and offer things at the lowest possible margins, and if you need to be big enough to get capital in, you have investors who demand their profits.
So basically you are squeezed between the public demanding lower prices and the investors demanding record returns. If you are not a monopoly, that is an impossible ask
Basically the only truly profitable businesses left out there is selling hopes and dreams to investors, and shovels to those who build them, which just about describes tech & AI, with companies who regularly manage to 10x their valuations (and P/E ratios)
Marx fails to imagine a world in which labor actually has little to no value.
His worldview is primarily that capitalists 'steal' the valuable labor. However it doesn't seem that that is actually the world we are in. Instead the intrinsic value of human labor seems to be slowly trending towards zero.
And it kind of makes sense, same has happened with oxen labor, horse labor, etc.
Isn’t it the complete opposite? i.e. high automatization means that a single worker can create many times more value than before. However it reduces the demand for labor and worker bargaining power. So companies have no incentive to pair “fair” wages.
That is true but likely only temporarily. Why is the single worker even needed?
We tend to have a pretty human-centric worldview so if there's a single human working to keep a hotel running, our default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case. You can imagine that hotel at some point in the near future goes from requiring 1 worker to keep it running to zero.
Because he is? I do not expect for some sort of universal “AGI” to emerge within my lifetime which would supplant humans in every area (of course what do I know.. but still there is no real indication we are even remotely close to that currently)
> default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case
Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.
>Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.
Indeed, but what happens if/when they choose to sell the system and someone else buys it? Now the owner is who is generating the value. Even if he hires some maintenance worker to come by once and awhile and check up on it, it is the system (aka the capital), not the worker that is generating the vast majority of the value.
> Marx fails to imagine a world in which labor actually has little to no value.
Marxism was an idea formulated especially as a reaction against a world where labor has lost almost all of its value. Which is precisely the origin of capitalism - the idea that money itself can be productive, and thus people who have lots of money can be expected to get more of it.
This was an untrue idea for most of human history, outside of the circles of moneylending and banking.
It doesn't seem like the value of human labor is going away. If you look at luxury goods, they're still "handmade". Telecoms still advertise human representatives. Nursing homes still charge massive amounts for personal service.
What's changing is how much of that surplus value is captured by the workers doing the labor.
This is clearly heading in a direction where the USA is going to elect a huge number of socialists, who in turn are going to enact massive taxes on billionaires and break up the monopolies.[1]
This is why I think the billionaire oligarchs are literally mentally ill. They've won the entire game. They control everything. They live like gods, they twitch a pinky and millions dance.
But their response to all of this power is to seek even more of it, destabilizing the very system that has them on top. You would think self-preservation would kick in. The fact that it is not and that their greed knows apparently no bounds is going to lead to their extinction.
For a long time I thought it was hyperbolic to say so, but no longer -- the billionaires are mentally ill.
I very much doubt that. There isn't enough class solidarity to pull it off.
There will be a few who brand themselves as such. But actually seizing the means of production and handing them over to the people? -- The oligarchs will burn this country to the ground before they permit that to happen.
It would of course be lose-lose for everyone. But if a significant proportion of the population starts believing (rationally or not) that they have nothing left to lose it could be problematic.
I too don't believe that GP's dream is going to happen, but the current momentum is much stronger than in the OWS days. Maybe it's less visible to some because the world has moved into online algorithmic bubbles rather than people camping in front of Wall Street. If they were more scared back then than they are now, it's not because the current momentum is actually weaker.
Well yeah. This is why we're calling end-stage capitalism. What's coming looks like technofeudalism.
All companies are rent-seeking. Selling something is no longer a goal.
Prices go up up up up up.
Oligopolies and price fixing is normal.
Monopolies are normal with little/no controls.
People are getting paid a pittance to the work done.
Unions are their weakest in a century.
NLRB is basically frozen due to no quorum on the head board.
Companies routinely scam and lie at multiple places in hiring pipeline. FTC does nothing.
Neither party (Republicans or Democrats), save the DSA, fights for the American people.
Its all coming to a head, and baskets, and guillotines. Anybody who studies history knows what kind of powderkeg this situation is. Its also the reason the Ancient Romans made panem et circunses (bread and circus) cheap or free. You get riots and revolts otherwise.
I find this metric misleading. Where is the extra money going? To whom? Turns out most of it is not going to billionaires. Bulk of it is going to future investments. If we choose not to do that, we lose out on future gains.
It's not naive, it's near optimal. The system rewards people who've done well at capital allocation with more capital to allocate, and takes capital away from those who've done poorly at it. And there's no better predict of future performance at allocating capital than past performance.
Well my point was that it might be optimal for the one doing the allocation and maximize their returns. That does not mean its optimal for the economy and society on the whole.
Actually it does mean it is optimal for the economy as opposed to a central planner who somehow has all the information and does planning with precision. These are mainstream views in economics.
Actually markets are always rational, perfectly efficient and there are no speculative bubbles? Of course not.
So its obviously suboptimal, only question if there is a more optimal system.
> central planner who somehow has all the information
Every developed country is balancing that with free markets and its the mainstream view that a balanced system is optimal (the exact ratio is of course something’s that not quite settled).
> Assuming that the allocation of capital is somehow aligned with what’s optimal for the economy/society seems naive
The empirical facts are that the disposable real wages have gone up by more than 50% over the last 20 years. People are way richer now than before and the growth in USA is much higher than any other developed nation other than small edge cases.
Now consider this against the rising productivity-pay gap that has been widening since teh 1970s [1].
The big picture here is increasing wealth inequality and that has been on steroids since the pandemic.
The only shocking part to me is how people continually and intentionally don't see it or, worse, think they'll be unaffected by it so don't care. You see this on HN where so many people seem to think they'll be Jeff Bezos one day.
But even if that's true, don't you want to live in a society where you don't need armed guards at your house and you don't need armed escorts to go anywhere? Because that's what we're heading towards. One of the problems with American society (in particular) being so car-centric is that it lets people insulate themselves from the rest of society more easily. In cities like NYC you're forced to see and deal with the less fortunate. You can't hide from it so easily.
We don't need trillionaires. We need to raise basic living standards so people have food and shelter and we don't need to separate society into slums and armored compounds.
> The only shocking part to me is how people continually and intentionally don't see it or, worse, think they'll be unaffected by it so don't care. You see this on HN where so many people seem to think they'll be Jeff Bezos one day.
Software engineers are a special kind of stupid: the kind that thinks they're smarter than everyone else.
Not even just Republicans, unfortunately. The generation of Americans who grew up in the Cold War were inundated with propaganda about how socialism would destroy America, and then go and say things like this https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/26/us/politics/moderate-demo...
They are a deeply selfish and immoral generation on the whole who make excuses for evil and denigrate anyone tryin to do good. Just looking at their voting patterns makes it quite clear.
Such a lame attempt to defend them by you lol--what makes you think money has anything to do with it? That's Boomer logic; IME, Boomers and right-wingers believe everyone is as self-centered as they are.
the conceit of leftists is that they are godd and pure... but they never are and it NEVER works out, just makes them insufferaby sanctimonious along the way. I was raised completely leftist btw, by good people, but I saw the craven insides of all their friends.
I didn't say the boomers weren't the way you describe, I said you're just like them, lofty ideals, all too human boundaries and self control.
The actual labor share of income is significantly higher when you include employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than overall inflation for decades, and while many of those costs are passed on to employees the employers have also absorbed a significant chunk. If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending.
And no, there's no simple solution to this problem. The notion that something like "Medicare for All" would solve the problem is a total fantasy, disconnected from actual US healthcare economics. Any real solution will have to work on multiple angles including preventive care, PBMs, provider wages, rationing, drug prices, fraud, malpractice insurance, interoperability technology, etc.
Why wouldn't a single-payer solution work? The margin that the insurance companies take for themselves seems like a good place to start. From there it would spiral out to the third to half of time that all of the clinical staff spend just dealing with insurance issues and insurance billing.
There are countries in Europe which have entirely privatized healthcare systems (not even medicare/medicaid equivalents). US tried adopting some of their practices with Obamacare and even that didn’t work out. Singlepayer isn’t really necessary to have a reasonably affordable and accessible healthcare system proper regulation is.
As successful as Obamacare has been it didn't really do much to lower the cost of healthcare or claw back the billions wasted to insurance company profits. There might be some kind of regulation just as effective as single payer, but we've never seen it anywhere in the US.
Well just copy paste the Swiss system (of course that’s not feasible both the “free market” and pro “socialized” single payer supporters would hate it). However they have a heavily regulated, reasonably affordable fully private healthcare system.
> As successful as Obamacare has been it didn't really do much to lower the cost of healthcare
It dramatically lowered the cost to consumers. Further, conflating overall healthcare spend with the portion of spend tied to a significantly lower-cost population is apples and oranges at best and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of healthcare cost in general. It's ok to not have opinions about things you know you don't understand.
"lowered" hasn't made much difference. Before the affordable care act Americans spent more and got less for their money and that hasn't changed. Insurance companies are still stuffing their pockets with billions and denying coverage. Americans struggled to afford the care that they needed before the affordable care act, and they still struggle to afford the care that they need today. The affordable care act was a very small improvement, but it didn't move the needle compared to other nations
I'm not necessarily opposed to a single-payer system but the margin that for-profit insurance companies take is a tiny fraction of overall healthcare spending. You could zero it out and it would barely move the needle. And many of the largest commercial health plans such as most Blue Cross Blue Shield Association members are non-profit. There is literally no margin.
Provider organizations spend a huge amount of effort dealing with Medicare and Medicaid, which are pretty close to being a "single-payer solution" already in many cases. From an administrative overhead perspective they aren't always easier to work with than commercial health plans. Plus they have enormous problems with fraud, waste, and abuse.
The mandated low margin is part of the problem. When your margins are regulated, the only way to increase profits is to just make everything more expensive. More revenue, same margin, more profits. Humane health care is incompatible with free market economics.
Perhaps its not compatible. But that’s tangential to the situation in the US, at the very minimum you need to have price transparency in any ‘free market’ system.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, the point is that there is no easy solution and optimizing based on what politicians subjectively consider "humane" isn't going to get us anywhere. If we want to actually fix the problem then we need to focus on what's economically feasible rather than low-effort hot takes and sound bites. Free markets, with reasonable limits, can be part of that solution by revealing consumer preferences and allowing for efficient allocation of limited resources.
> Is it humane to leave a patient to die in an ambulance when a single-payer nationalized healthcare system is over capacity?
I think painting the inhumanity of that as a consequence of the structure of the healthcare system is disengenuous at best, especially as the implicit solution you're proposing is to artificially lower utilization rate and access. Deflecting patient deaths into "technically not our fault, they didn't try to get help" by exploiting economics is in no small terms extremely inhumane.
The answer to that is that near universally in the world, our labor pool of medical personnel is too small, and almost all of it has to deal with an arbitrary restriction of labor supply. Stupidly, I have felt this many times in America, so trivially it's a problem no matter the structure of the healthcare system. Optimizing towards maximizing the number of nurses, doctors, pharmacists, the whole spread, in a society is underdiscussed but obviously beneficial (for everybody but those who profit off of the labor scarcity)
> I'm not trying to be snarky here, the point is that there is no easy solution and optimizing based on what politicians subjectively consider "humane" isn't going to get us anywhere.
On the contrary, most politicians seem very adamantly against what I'm proposing. I don't know why you think I'm suggesting that we delegate how we determine what's humane to politicans.
That is the inevitable consequence of your suggestion. In any national healthcare system, it's ultimately the politicians who have to make choices about the incentives that drive the behavior of every other participant.
Is it humane to spend $100K of public funds to extend the life of a terminal cancer patient by 6 weeks? Some would say yes, others no. Those are real choices that have to be made and in the most expensive parts of the healthcare system there is no clear consensus on what is "humane".
is it humane to solve that problem by excluding people based on income? that's what your proposing, as that's how markets solve problems like this: if more people need a product/service than the market can provide prices go up and the poor are excluded. also not trying to be snarky but that's the choice in front of us. part of the problem with free market solutions to healthcare is the feasibility of walking away from a bad deal. in every other space prices are regulated downward by the buyers' ability to either buy something else or do without but there is no doing without emergency care and doing without preventive care is just deferring the cost until it's emergency care at punitive interest.
Stop lying, I haven't proposed anything of the kind. Free market solutions often include giving cash subsidies to certain participants (and you would be aware of this if you had bothered to do even basic research on serious healthcare system reform proposals before commenting). I'm simply pointing out that it's a complex problem with multiple causes and there is no simple solution.
Even cash subsidies can be a kind of chain. Why wouldn't we just subsidize the whole thing for everyone then? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to collect groups of people into "risk pools," then why wouldn't we just put everyone in a global risk pool? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to negotiate rates on behalf of a bunch of people, why wouldn't we have someone like CMS determine those rates? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to make sure everyone has health care, why would we create a system where people are excluded by means-testing?
They're not lying any more than you were when you responded to my suggestion that we should prioritize what's humane with some sort of interpretation that I was saying something about politicians.
I don't think the core issue is the health insurance companies stealing money, it's the deep inefficiencies that come from the position the insurance companies hold.
How many man-hours are spent dealing with insurance paperwork? How much do hospitals and doctors spend each year just dealing with that interaction, rather than treating patients?
> Plus they have enormous problems with fraud, waste, and abuse.
I'd say "enormous" requires some evidentiary proof. Obviously there is fraud and waste. But almost all large scale systems have that. We should certainly try to minimize it wherever we can but I don't think "waste and fraud exist" are a reason to not pursue a path.
>I'd say "enormous" requires some evidentiary proof. Obviously there is fraud and waste. But almost all large scale systems have that. We should certainly try to minimize it wherever we can but I don't think "waste and fraud exist" are a reason to not pursue a path.
Are you living in the same country as the rest of us? There is plentiful evidence of the enormous fraud and waste. It’s not even a point of debate anymore.
For what it's worth I know you've worked on FHIR and probably know a lot of details I don't. Actually I'd be interested in talking to you about FHIR.
That said!
1) In the big picture isn't the US clearly paying more than other countries? I'm sure some of this is eg a janitor in the US costs more than a janitor elsewhere, but still...
2) Isn't the cap for the margin that insurance companies can take 20%? That is, they have to pay out 80% as claims take 20% for overhead
3) Doesn't insurance also induce more work done by everyone else who has to deal with them? So the margin the insurance company itself takes is not the only cost they add. Maybe they make providers do more paperwork, or let patients order tests etc that they would not if they were not spending other people's money, or some other reason. Say insurance pays out 80%, but 30% of documentation or actual work is not done by insurance but only exists because of them, now we're down to 56%.
I say this because literally yesterday, my wife, a pediatrician, after she spent the day seeing patients and got home to go through notes, had to leave a message with an insurance company: she saw they faxed her clinic on Saturday, when the clinic was closed, to cancel care for a patient with an ongoing chronic condition with no changes unless the insurance company got a reply in 48 hours (again, while the clinic was closed!). Now she has to schedule some kind of I don't even know what with them, to confirm the condition is the exact same, except she sees patients all day so it's a pain to schedule...
idk the fact that BCBS is a non profit and has no margin in some technical sense does not seem like a big consolation, something is rotten no?
(edit - the insurance company in the anecdote is not BCBS)
I've worked on a lot of healthcare interoperability standards, including HL7 FHIR. Those can be part of the solution in terms of making the system operate more efficiently and cutting administrative overhead. In many cases payer and provider organizations are still doing things manually that could be automated using existing standards. But they fail to do so due to lack of vision and insufficient technical resources. Literally everything that can be done with a fax can be done faster and better with X12 / NCPCP / DirectTrust standards that have been around for years and are widely supported by commercial EHRs.
It's true that no matter how you look at it, the USA spends a lot more per capita on healthcare relative to outcomes. But you have to be careful what outcome metric you look at. Like we're not doing great on life expectancy, but much of that is due to factors largely outside the healthcare system like violence, vehicle crashes, and lifestyle choices. And in other areas like 5-year cancer survival rates or new drug development we're at or near the top. Part of the problem in the USA is that we seem to be culturally incapable of admitting that rationing is needed, and that it simply isn't feasible to deliver excellent care to everyone, so political reform debates devolve into sound bites about "death panels".
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set a minimum health plan medical loss ratio of 80%, or actually 85% for larger plans. And in practice most come in higher than that due to competitive pressures.
There's a huge amount of administrative overhead in dealing with health plans for things like claims and prior authorization. Much of that is imposed not so much by insurers themselves but by employers who want to hold down costs. Like a commercial insurer would be happy to sell a plan that would pay every claim immediately at 100% with no questions asked. It would be less work for them. But no one would buy it because costs would explode. Medicare and Medicaid plans also have prior authorization and peer review processes. Something like a quarter of all healthcare services are "low value care" which doesn't align with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and may even harm the patient, so when health plans apply review processes the right way then ideally it's better for patients and holds down costs for everyone.
To be clear, I'm not here to defend commercial health insurance companies. They are part of the problem and some reforms in that area are sorely needed. But let's have an honest debate about it and stop pretending that eliminating them would solve the deeper systemic problems.
Admin inefficiencies between orgs definitely exist and maybe better interoperability and standards is the solution, but wouldn't there also be less of a problem in the first place if there were fewer different orgs all complicating workflows?
Also not saying you're wrong about many healthcare services being unnecessary or even harmful, and someone has to be the one to say no to patients asking for low value care which is definitely a real hard position to be in and a real problem. At the same time insurance companies aren't making a great case for themselves as the solution imo bring on the government death panels.
Yes, provider organizations waste a lot of resources dealing with differences between health plans. Reducing the number of different payers would certainly reduce that overhead, at least in the short term. Mandating increased health plan transparency and use of open interoperability standards can also help by allowing providers to deal with those health plans in a more consistent way and automating much of the current manual work.
In general though I'm just skeptical that a single payer solution is the best possible long-term approach. US federal and state governments are already under tremendous fiscal pressure. So if we forcibly route all healthcare payments through governments then there's going to be constant pressure to hold down costs through blunt measures. And decisions will inevitably become even more politicized with special favors or punishments given out based on party loyalty. Do we really want to put someone like Xavier Becerra or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of centrally planning something like a fifth of the US economy?
The current US healthcare system is unnecessarily wasteful and cruel. But on the positive side we produce far more innovation per capita than any other country. Let's find a way to incrementally fix the worst problems without killing the golden goose.
insurance issues are provider and insurer going back and forth detrmining if doctors assessment of necessity is agreed upon.
i am not familiar with universal system. In that system if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary then thats the end of it and its gets done?
All healthcare systems have some form of rationing. Even if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary it can only get done if the system actually has capacity.
In most countries where there is universal coverage with a single payer, certain expensive treatments have long waiting lists or are simply unavailable at any price. Thus we see wealthy Canadians coming to the USA as medical tourists and paying cash for procedures like MRI scans or joint replacements in order to avoid the queue back home. There are always trade-offs, it's just a matter of what we want to prioritize.
In my experience, insurance issues are usually insurer and patient going back and forth and then patient getting 6 different answers from 6 different representatives, then reviewing the 3000 page plan document, finding the single line that properly describes what should have happened, calling the insurance company, explaining to the rep how your plan works, and demanding that it be reprocessed. Like my wife has to do this frequently and spends several hours per month dealing with this but she has saved us probably tens of thousands of dollars in mis-processed claims that the insurance companies can't even properly handle. I usually am the person carefully reading plan docs, finding the proper billing codes, and explaining things like that to the insurance company. Sometimes we have to get the doctor's billing people to code things, like once they coded something that was an outpatient appointment as a minor surgery which could have cost us a lot of money.
So in my book since we get to speculate about what the system should look like, it should absolutely result in people getting care without all of this run-around. It's about eliminating as much misery as possible from the system and letting people just get treated and providers just get paid. We can talk about efficiency once the misery is gone.
Yes, part of the overall solution needs to be health plan transparency on clinical guidelines and coverage rules. Currently much of that is concealed, or applied unevenly.
But we're not going to eliminate misery from the healthcare system. Demand is effectively infinite, mainly from patients with complex conditions, and supply is finite. Developed countries with more socialized healthcare systems typically do a pretty good job of delivering basic primary care but things often fall apart when more complex or specialized care is needed. Those systems also ration and deny care but it tends to be through forcing patients to wait in long queues, or simply not offering expensive treatments at all. Like under the UK NHS, some prescription cancer drugs just aren't available. So that's a different form of misery.
You're citing some of the results of a runaway healthcare industrial complex, such as drug prices, as reasons why the thing that would keep such a complex from emerging won't work.
Employers might be contributing more to healthcare costs, but that's because they have to in order to keep coverage for their employees at all as premiums increase, and individual out-of-pocket costs are still rising as a result of coverage denial and high deductibles.
While healthcare spending isn’t included in some economic measures like wages (which has contributed to the distorted productivity-pay gap discourse), labor share as discussed in this article is actually calculated using total compensation, the “total of payments to labor to produce output, including wages, benefits, and other monetary or nonmonetary payments,” which includes employer contributions to medical care not just wages and salaries.[0] They do discuss payroll share later on though, which doesn’t include non-wage compensation.
I've built and audited medical billing systems and billing practices. It isn't an economics issue in a traditional sense. Infact it would drastically reduce complexity of these systems and payments over time, even allowing private insurers to exist but have to compete with a base general coverage. (many smarter people than me at princeton did economics showing this worked out as a net less expensive than what we are doing now) The biggest reason why its not the simplistic solution, is politics of all the middle men (me) making exponential returns from solutions to these systemic issues.
Too much money in the system being flawed, look at pricing for any HIPAA safe products and thats just technology. Money is so hard to get for healthcare providers it is its own industry of revenue cycle management and thrid party billers. Most of these physician lead practices charge more is because planning your account around reemburcement cycles from insurance companies are 30-120 days if your lucky is an advanced accounting problem. (Thats excluding complexities of audits, LOPs, network rates etc.) Medicare/medicaid the fraud side has lots of tiny wins through leaning on tax information more, taking the model from the successful basic income studies and trials worked out.
I'm not sure what you mean by pricing for "HIPAA safe products"? It's not particularly expensive to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule, and honestly that level of privacy and security is the minimum we ought to expect in any industry that deals with sensitive consumer data.
There aren't as many physician-led practices anymore. Most of them have been rolled up into larger health systems in order to achieve economies of scale and increase negotiating power with commercial health plans. Which is one of the factors driving up overall healthcare system costs.
Do other countries' state healthcare system costs count towards their labor share of income? If not, it seems sensible not to account for them that way in the US, or you're creating a much more serious apples and oranges problem for international statistics (which are often cited/compared for these figures)...
> If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending.
It may not be simple but it's clear the United States is doing something catastrophically wrong. All the other healthcare systems on the planet in developed countries have problems, sure. But we spend magnitudes more money to receive middling-to-shit healthcare. Medical debt and bankruptcy is a unique American problem that also happens to be the most reliable way for otherwise productive and prosperous members of our society to end up fucking homeless. Because they got SICK. I rarely use the word "evil" but that really fits IMO.
Like you cannot tell me with a straight face that the insurance industry couldn't be blown the fuck off the map tomorrow and literally everyone who doesn't own an insurance company isn't instantly better off.
If the insurance companies disappeared tomorrow, presumably all medical care is paid for at point of use by patients? That would mean stochastically facing catastrophic bills from providers. I am sympathetic to the idea that healthcare providers and systems here should be making no more than in, say, Europe, but an orthopaedic surgeon being paid the $300k USD-equivalent in Germany instead of his $750k USD income today at median would be very unhappy.
There are certainly some things that we could do to increase the supply of physicians by reducing the cost of education, expanding access to combined BS/MD programs, and increasing the number of residency slots. But those measures will have marginal effects, and take years to show up in supply numbers. There just aren't a lot more people who are mentally and physically capable of doing this work.
Part of the problem is that we force physicians to waste too much time on administrative work. Some of this could be delegated to cheaper employees or not done at all, thus effectively increasing supply. Administrative overhead is also one of the factors driving physicians to quit and pivot to other careers or retire early, which further constrains supply.
This part is controversial but we'll also have to shift a lot of primary care to Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. Care quality might be lower in some cases but for routine conditions it's probably better to see a PA/NP today instead of waiting weeks for a physician.
Sure, but the rare type of person capable of becoming an orthopedic surgeon has other career options. There are some who are drawn to it as a calling because they love caring for patients and would do it regardless of wages. But most respond to economic incentives, so at the margins some will choose to go into technology or finance or something and make more money there.
When we fix the price of something below the market clearing price then there will always be a shortage. This is inevitable. We might decide that having a shortage of orthopedic surgeons is acceptable but let's not pretend that there are no trade-offs.
Germany has a stagnant economy so it's easy for their healthcare system to pay doctors lower wages because they have few other options. Baumol's cost disease is a real factor in healthcare, and it impacts the USA more than most other countries precisely because our overall economic growth has been so robust.
If you as a person are turned off of a career because you can only make a mere, paltry peasant wage of $300k per year, then I think that's really a you problem there.
And as to your comments about shortages, we already have shortages.
Feel free to moralize all you like about the maximum wages other people should earn if that makes you feel better but that won't solve any of the actual problems. In the real world, most people respond to economic incentives. Shortages can always get worse. (I am not a physician.)
Are you telling me that $750K yearly compensation still isn't enough for an NBA player? Maybe they should be nice and agree to play for less because they love the game and want to entertain people.
If we're talking about orthopedic surgeons specifically, a good one is essentially an elite athlete. A single tiny error can leave a patient dead or crippled. It takes a rare combination of intelligence, ability to focus for hours, physical strength, and fine motor control. So only a minuscule fraction of people even have the necessary potential. And the training pipeline is necessarily long because they need a lot of reps to build up the mental and physical skills, and to weed out those who aren't suited. Sure, you can find some people who are willing to do the work for lower wages but will they be the right people?
Beyond the wage issue, supply for all physicians is artificially constrained by training system capacity limits, as I already explained above. There are things that could be done to make training a bit cheaper and maybe two years shorter. But the easiest win would be to make more efficient use of the existing supply by optimizing workflows, and automating or eliminating administrative tasks.
What the US is doing is nonsensical. Modern Healthcare is an industrial system designed to handle large populations in bulk. But it only works if everyone can get timely access. This is true for things like mass screenings and medication.
The insane thing is denying it to half of the population doesn't really mean the other half gets to save that much money in real terms.
I strongly agree that socializing the healthcare industry will not help in any way. To the extent that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, it's precisely because of government intervention in the U.S. Healthcare industry has massively increased over the last 50 years, especially in the form of tax incentives for employers to compensate employees by way of health insurance. Anyway, with respect to the labor share of income, that is not correct. Employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums are included in the labor share.
> To the extent that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, it's precisely because of government intervention in the U.S. Healthcare industry has massively increased over the last 50 years, especially in the form of tax incentives for employers to compensate employees by way of health insurance.
It fails to follow logically that one specific way the government got involved that drove costs up means that any possible intervention is worse than completely being hands-off. How do you explain pretty much every other developed country in the world having more government involvement but lower costs than the US?
When something is paid for from a big nebulous ball of money rather than straight out of people's pockets, the downward pressure on prices just isn't there in the same way. The conversations between practitioners and insurers are about whether something is necessary, not about whether or not the practitioner is charging too much for it.
Here in the UK we see it, too - not so much in human healthcare since we have the NHS - but very definitely in animal healthcare; vets' bills have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, in a mutually-reinforcing feedback loop with the rise in pet health insurance.
> Here in the UK we see it, too - not so much in human healthcare since we have the NHS - but very definitely in animal healthcare; vets' bills have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, in a mutually-reinforcing feedback loop with the rise in pet health insurance.
Kind of amazing how perfectly this illustrates that in the exact same economy, the system with single payer mostly works to keep prices sane, and the private insurance model goes off the rails
Health care costs across the developed world have skyrocketed for exactly the same structural reasons. Yes, implementations have been different in their details, but the larger structure is the same no matter where you look in the developed world. Government intervention has increased. That means more top-down management and less bottom-up self-organization based on private property and individual incentives.
This is not some spurious speculation. That market-based systems drive down costs enormously is replicated across dozens upon dozens of industries. It's one of the most replicable results in economics to the extent that economics can be replicable. As for why the costs in other countries are not quite as high as the U.S., it's because health care costs also increase as per capita GDP increases and the U.S. has higher per capita GDP. Moreover, because the U.S. has some aspects of its health care system still living more in the private sector, there is less top-down rationing. Other countries see very clear examples of rationing, so people spend less on end-of-life care.
> This is not some spurious speculation. That market-based systems drive down costs enormously is replicated across dozens upon dozens of industries. It's one of the most replicable results in economics to the extent that economics can be replicable. As for why the costs in other countries are not quite as high as the U.S., it's because health care costs also increase as per capita GDP increases and the U.S. has higher per capita GDP. Moreover, because the U.S. has some aspects of its health care system still living more in the private sector, there is less top-down rationing. Other countries see very clear examples of rationing, so people spend less on end-of-life care.
That actually sounds a lot like speculation. You're claiming that the most largest structural difference in the healthcare system in the US compared to other countries is unrelated to the difference in costs, and that other factors explain it, based on inferences from things not related to healthcare. I don't understand how you can have any degree of confidence that single payer versus private insurance has no effect at all based on what you're saying.
What I'm saying is not spurious speculation is the idea that the healthcare industry across the developed world has gotten more expensive because it has become less market-based and more top-down controlled. That's an extrapolation from the observed patterns across dozens upon dozens of industries.
As for the difference between the U.S. healthcare system and healthcare systems in other developed countries, if they had the same output of health care services, I would agree, but the US has far more diagnostic equipment per capita and more advanced treatments. It has the best neonatal facilities in the world. These are extremely costly and some of this expenditure doesn't actually produce that big of a difference in outcomes because it's really just dealing with end of life care, or a relatively small number of patients (e.g. premature infants). But when people are free to spend their money as they wish, this is what they prioritize. I'm also not ruling out that the U.S. healthcare system has less efficient government intervention than the healthcare systems of other developed countries. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea that, more broadly speaking, the structural change towards more government intervention has raised costs across developed world healthcare systems.
The more important question in my opinion is why health care spending across the entire developed world has skyrocketed over the last 40 years. It can be fairly inferred that the cost increase is directly related to increased administration and a lack of the kind of cost-cutting innovation seen in every industry that is substantially more market-based / consumer-driven, i.e. less top-down regimented, than healthcare.
Even cosmetic and laser eye surgery has seen costs come down over the last 40 years. That's what we should be seeing in the rest of the healthcare industry. And the reason we're not is because they operate under very different economic forces than cosmetic and laser eye surgeries, on account of government encouraging people to be covered by either public insurance or private insurance.
This is true in the sense that if I sell water in the desert at $100 a bottle, at 900% profit margin, doesn't mean that if the government steps in and pays half of it, that the resulting system is somehow good, just because less people are dying of thirst.
That sounds good to me. Why should millions of Americans die every year because they can't afford their medications just so that other countries can get their meds at extremely low prices? Let's also have the US government negotiate our prices and let things even out across the board.
Removing a useless middleman party that needs a profit margin, and removing the perverse incentives of them having to prove their value thus having inflated prices with fake discounts, and centralising all healthcare purchasing power in a single entity, is absolutely going to solve a lot of challenges US healthcare faces
> And no, there's no simple solution to this problem. The notion that something like "Medicare for All" would solve the problem is a total fantasy, disconnected from actual US healthcare economics. Any real solution will have to work on multiple angles including preventive care, PBMs, provider wages, rationing, drug prices, fraud, malpractice insurance, interoperability technology, etc.
I have been saying this for years. I'm so tired of social media memes turning into sage wisdom for an entire generation who can barely spell healthcare, let alone have any vague understanding of it.
I'm and-then'ing, not disagreeing, but the big healthcare cost fix, IMO, still centers around education cost reform, and fixing the supply of mid-levels+ across the country.
Is there a reference you can cite with corrected numbers? Honestly this sounds like excuse-making, especially when used as a jumping point into a decidedly partisan take (complete with scare quotes!) on the essentially unrelated subject of public health care financing.
The idea seems to have merit, but it's unconvincing to people outside your bubble and I'm dubious.
You misinterpreted by comment. It was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology. None of the major US political parties have workable reform proposals that could actually be implemented and achieve net positive results.
This is a complex topic with no tl;dr possible. If you want to be able to participate in discussions on a rational, quantitative basis then a good starting point is "The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care--and How to Fix It" by Marty Makary, MD. It goes into the numbers far better than I can cover in a short HN comment.
> [my comment] was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology
That's what all partisans think. Nonetheless you put needless scare quotes around Medicare for All, dismissed it as a "total fantasy", and, I guess, helpfully suggested I read a book by (literally!) the head of the Trump administration's FDA as a reference for "What Broke American Health Care".
If that was all done in good faith, then you're in an echo chamber and need to escape.
Is there anything in that book that is factually incorrect, or are you going to stick with a lazy, low-effort dismissal? If you had actually read it you would know that it's refreshingly free of partisan ideology.
The quotes around "Medicare For All" were intended not to scare anyone but to identify a general set of policy proposals that have been floating around lately.
Again, we're not having an argument about health care, and I'm not trying to dismiss the book you cited that pertains to the argument we're not having. I'm saying that book is clearly partisan, as is your argument.
And I'm using that observation (which you keep reinforcing!) to justify my suspicion around the economic point you tried to make upthread (that, I guess, "hidden" health care "income" would increase labor's share if measured).
It's 100% clear to me that the labor/income point is spin, and to be blunt I don't believe it for an instant.
People are misreading the conclusion - the Covid related drop is normal and matches previous episodes, but the massive overall drop since 2000 is not.
The situation on the ground is unchanged - the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us.
This is consistent with the observation that the top 10% have captured a disproportionate share of GDP growth over the past few decades.
https://equitablegrowth.org/new-data-reveal-how-u-s-economic...
"The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion."
Also note: Labor share has declined similarly across OECD countries for several decades.
Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share.
> Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share.
I highly doubt automation and robots are a meaningful factor here, but IP and outsourcing have the exact same as automation.
New factories use very few people, part of the reason why it's difficult for many countries to industrialize like South Korea or China did (climbing manufacturing ladder).
> New factories use very few people
That's both true and false. Yes they need very few people to operate, but building and maintaining still need a lot of people.
They need fewer people to build and to maintain than older ones did. Further the jobs from building the factory are temporary.
> Further the jobs from building the factory are temporary.
This is correct, and it has an impact on local employment and social dynamics, but not at the country level.
> They need fewer people to build and to maintain than older ones did.
That's absolutely not true. Quite the opposite. You do need less people to build and maintain a modern plant than to operate an factory in the past.
Also, you need to clarify what you mean by “older”, because heavy industries have automated steadily between the 50s and the 80s, and that process was mostly achieved by the 90s.
And I can't think of an industry that was still labor intensive by the 20s and that has been more impacted by automation than offshoring.
There’s plenty of papers showing exactly this. What do you think has driven productivity? People simply bring smarter?
The fact is capital expenditure from company or investors has bought machinery, compute, pipelines, transport, and massive investment to make those workers more productive for decades. As such, the returns to capital as a share has increased. Those places able to deploy capital to add productivity win over those that don’t.
And real total remuneration across all quintiles has increased significantly. BLS among others has all historical data to check.
If/when there’s a period where there isn’t more gains to be had by more investment per worker, and workers become more productive via their own skill (education, diet, genetic implants,…), then more returns will flow that direction.
This is all well known, and easily checked.
Automation isn't foreign to the topic. There's some discussion here that refrains from estimating too hard, but I think it's closer to outsourcing's effect:
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/jun/worker-sc...
Outsourcing and automation both reduce worker leverage, which reduces wages, which could explain reduced labor share. I'm not sure how one would weight it all.
Employee compensation comes from capital. And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc.
There's a return on capital than is not spent on employees. That reflects how much capital is growing and how much can be spent on employees in the future.
>And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc.
Just as are the top executives. And the shareholders that have put money into companies that provide "robots, etc.". All these people, including labor, are stakeholders. If there was 5% GDP growth that got reflected as 5% growth in net earnings for the company, one would expect that all the stakeholders would see roughly a 5% increase in their personal earnings from the company. The dollar amount would be higher for higher earners (5% of $1M is greater than 5% of $50k), but the percentage increase would be roughly in line. The real world results are not even close to this "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal.
They didn't make the rising tide analogy, I read it as how much could be captured by labor if we increased leverage.
In any case, it doesn't follow that wages grow with earnings. Wages have historically been a lagging indicator.
>They didn't make the rising tide analogy, I read it as how much could be captured by labor if we increased leverage.
Fair point, though it's not completely clear from the comment.
>Wages have historically been a lagging indicator.
Of course, companies don't know in advance that they're going to have GDP-assisted growth. My point was that growth on the back of GDP growth is a collective windfall, and you'd expect it to be evenly distributed. But it clearly isn't.
> Employee compensation comes from capital.
All human collective endeavors (with few exceptions) require 3 kinds of human-related input: capital, labor and ideas.
Nobody puts their capital into an endeavor in which the plan is for the that capital to provide renumeration for the labor for more than the shortest possible time (*). The goal is always to generate revenue in sufficient volume to pay for the labor, and when that goal is met, that success is a function of all 3 kinds of contribution.
So no, employee compensation does not come from capital, but from revenue that results from the successful interaction of capital, labor and ideas.
(*) non-profits would be an obvious exception, except that nobody actually talks about investing capital in such organizations, we just make "donations" or "grants". That money plays the same role as capital, however.
> Automation, robots, software etc.
Nah, it is just capitalism at work. Winner takes all.
"Top 10%" is such a misleading slice here. The guy who's at the 9.99th percentile is a normal salaried worker not doing better. The gains are entirely concentrated in the tiny billionaire slice buried inside that 10%. In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom deciles [1]. Incomes still grow fast in the top decile, but mostly due to assets. And those assets are disproportionately in the hands of the billionaire slice of that top decile.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/strong-wage-growth-for-low-w...
The top 10% incomes have tons of assets, especially homes.
Saying that billionaires "disproportionately" have more assets than non-billionaires is a tautology that says nothing. You might as well say that tall people have disproportionately more height than people who are not tall. Billionaire is a statement about wealth, not income.
> In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom deciles
Which is a very good thing, but also doesn't address anything. The bottom deciles live from their wages. The top decile either put most of their wages into assets, are already so wealthy that their wages don't matter, or live in luxury they can't afford.
The macroeconomic purpose of inflation as a tool is to lower the wages of high wage earners - because socially you can't really lower people's wages, at best you can refuse refuse them raises. It's easy to raise the income of lower deciles to offset inflation, either through legislation or safety net. Middle-high wage earners who do nothing under inflation face an effective pay cut.
> The guy who's at the 9.99th percentile is a normal salaried worker not doing better.
He is not normal, he is in the top 10%. His income triples or quadruples a median income. He is of course not doing better than himself, but he is doing better than 90% of other people by definition.
Point is that income from dividends, rent and capital gains far outstrips the $150k the 90th percentile guy makes [1], which you have conveniently ignored. The $150k 90th percentile earner has more common with the $50k 50th percentile earner than he does with the billionaire earning $100M of capital gains, dividends and rent from assets. The 90th percentile guy is a wage laborer like the 50th percentile guy; they are effectively the same class. The only different class is the capital owning class.
Being able to afford a slightly nicer car or house does not change your class. Being able to influence elections, buy lobbying power, play power games, being in the "in" group of capitalism changes your class.
[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Household income at the 90th percentile is about $250k per the US census. [1] And wealth disparities tend to be much larger yet still since a significant chunk of the $250k spending is going to go into things they have equity in like mortgage/low depreciation assets/etc, as opposed to food and rent. Especially in modern times where seemingly every industry is trying to figure out ways to charge rent while providing as little in return as possible.
Oligarchs have always been in their own class.
[1] - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/income-puts-top-10-earners-16...
Aren't most of the tech workers here part of that 10% and I'd assume they own houses in some of the most expensive areas, so they are technically part of the capital class?
Being a part of the "capital class" does not mean simply having passed a net worth threshold.
It means having sufficient liquid capital that you can invest it in uncertain outcomes, generally without fear of poverty or perhaps any real negative effects on one's life at all.
Owning a very expensive home in a very high cost-of-living place (or even in a not-so-high cost-of-living place) does not place a person in that position.
You think most of the tech workers here own houses...?
defining classes is complicated. if you do it based on income percentile it will always be arbitrary and never reflect actual economic relations.
the most accepted way to divide in socialist circles is based off where your income comes from, your relation to capital. if you have to work for someone else thats working class (proletariat), if you can be independent you are professional or middle class, if you own the means of production for others that makes you a capitalist. owning a house is only capital class if you rent it out.
from that pov almost all tech workers are professional or working class. with founder ceos its more complicated because they own capital but also work for themselves through their company so you can take them as either. i guess it depends on if you like that person.
"I define things so that I'm in the good set and _they_ are in the bad set".
It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.
Your incentives come from where your money comes from. This is a pretty basic concept and it's absurd to brush it off as a form of No True Scotsman.
You can get money from both labor and capital. This is called "middle class." Don't let it melt your brain, but don't oversimplify to "you owned a stock so are capital class" either. Just give the labor/capital percentages (ordinary income / capital gains) and note how it leans.
New grad tech worker: 100%/0%
Mid career tech worker: 50%/50%
Late career tech worker: 10%/90%
Retired: 0%/100%
Exactly. The original comment in this thread asked if most tech workers here are part of the capital class themselves. Which was answered by saying that if you're employed by someone else, you are part of the worker class and thus tech workers are part of the worker class.
Introducing the fact that it's a spectrum and that equity ownership (which a vast majority of people in this industry have) makes you a capital owner is exactly my correction to that.
They provided a decently accurate description of the working class vs the capitalist class. I don't think your reply fits here.
Most tech workers do not get compensated with stock. A fraction of the best compensated get stock. The next tier down get options with so many caveats that they are effectively worthless, and the tier below them are straight salary with no equity even entering the horizon for them.
And yea, once you start getting actual capital and start reaping the benefits of that wealth you start being identified as a capitalist in the socialist world view.
Edit: the comment I replied to originally had this sentence at the end
> Very typical for a certain type of folk. It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.
Eh? Which tech company doesn't give RSUs to fresh grads? Startups of course give options.
And how many american middle class+ (generalizing beyond tech workers) don't own equity?
Our corporation gives us worthless certificates for "money", that only pay out conditionally based on if the company gets re-evaluated for worth.
Our 401K match maxes out at $50 per paycheck.
You are in a bubble if you are surprised at the idea of companies not giving out stock, much less RSUs specifically. While it’s common in the big tech Silicon Valley companies there are thousands of other tech companies where the most they give are options, and I must repeat with a litany of caveats that make them effectively worthless, and even more where they only pay salary and have no way to gain equity at all.
I am in a lower tier of the market than Silicon Valley and after 15 years of making over six figure salary I have not been given a single stock, and none of my employees or members of my social circles that don’t work at FAANGs have either.
Considering how my second paragraph was ignored, I assume you own stock in major companies either directly or through indices, thus making you a capital owner that makes money from other people's work (work used in the literal sense)?
Note that around half of the US stock market is passively owned, so this is not a small number on aggregate
Further see: my reply to a sibling in this same thread.
I “own” stock through my 401k. The “own” is in scare quotes because I cannot liquidate it other than as a loan for a home, and then only with my employers permission which is an odd definition for ownership and which most of the middle class in the US is bound by.
Considering how you ignored the response to you asking
> Eh? Which tech company doesn't give RSUs to fresh grads? Startups of course give options.
I assume you are not here in good faith and just want to argue that all is well and good.
Don’t try and hide behind your second argument when your first point was contested and then act all indignant.
Edit:
Responding to
> Further see: my reply to a sibling in this same thread.
I found your other reply here[1], quoting in case you edit it
> Exactly. The original comment in this thread asked if most tech workers here are part of the capital class themselves. Which was answered by saying that if you're employed by someone else, you are part of the worker class and thus tech workers are part of the worker class. > Introducing the fact that it's a spectrum and that equity ownership (which a vast majority of people in this industry have) makes you a capital owner is exactly my correction to that.
You are still assuming that most tech workers are given stock grants and have equity. I fundamentally disagreed with that.
I do not believe that the vast majority of people in this industry have been given equity.
Don’t try and pretend that I am wrong because I disagree with you. Show your work or be dismissed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742201
Every discussion about the 'top 10%' seems to make the underlying assumption that the set of people who fall under that category are consistent. While there are certainly individuals who enter the top 10% (or top 1%) and stay there; there are large numbers of people who move in and out of those categories.
For me personally, I am in the top 10%; but a few decades ago, I was not.
The statistical evidence for your claim is not good. There is certainly a generational effect in that 5 year olds are typically not in the upper decile, simply because they generally have little to no individual wealth or income. But in the USA at least, most people die in the same decile they were born into.
Exactly! And while a well off person may have a memory of a time in their life when they were not doing well (like in school, starting their career etc.) that can be misleading. You tend to end up like your parents more then was true three or four generations ago for many reasons: tax policy, less physical mobility, people tending more to marry with similar levels of education or income.
People debate how much social mobility there is in the US, but it seems pretty clear that the trend has been toward less mobility. The founding fathers of the US did not want to replace one aristocracy with another. Obviously there are some who think the change makes sense-- not me.
Something I've seen a lot is claims about individuals being self made, climbing the ladder from grit and ingenuity and such. Look at Bezos, he's an example of climbing the ladder! Or Zuckerberg!
And when you dig a bit more, you kinda find out this isn't really true?
I mean look at this AI summary of asking "Was Jeff Bezos born into wealth"
> Jeff Bezos was not born into wealth; his mother was a 17-year-old student and his adoptive father was an impoverished Cuban refugee who arrived in the U.S. alone at age 16. However, his maternal grandfather owned a large Texas ranch and later provided roughly $250,000 to help fund the launch of Amazon
Oh so his parents weren't wealthy only his grandparents. That's totally different
You know what my Grandpa gave me? A used car worth about 3 grand. Still amazing, I'm still very grateful to him! But the comparison here is absolutely not in the same league!
And I'm still a fortunate one, because many people get much less than a car from their families
The question is how many people get $250k from their family and lose it all.
Everyone's life is a mix of skill and luck, so to discredit skill, you would need to quantify the luck. An easy example is a lottery winner, a hard example is a Bezos. Any investor with the foresight to see what Bezos could do with grans money, would jump past her in line and give him triple.
You have to have access to far more than $250k to be willing to blow that creating a startup. I may give my kids $250k for a house to live in. I do not have enough for them to yolo it on a dot com startup.
> The question is how many people get $250k from their family and lose it all
I don't think that really matters? The fact that they even had that shot at all is such an incredible opportunity above people whose family simply cannot afford to even try
This is bourgeois idealism. In reality, the people in the top 10% remain there and rarely fall
This is a good point I haven't considered in the past and worth to take into the overall discussion.
Here's what I found asking AI:
So, the top 10% holds roughly as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined.The top 1% alone holds more than the entire bottom 90% minus the upper-middle segment.
To be in the top 10% you would need roughly 1,8 Million $ in assets (that's probably 90% of HN useerbase)
Basically, the bottom 50% are a slave class that doesn't even participate in the economy.
LE: The richest 20% are the only ones powering the U.S. economy, per Moody's Zandi. K-shaped economy all the way.
Those numbers for 2026 may be right, but they absolutely do not mean that anyone who finds themselves in one of those categories must stay there.
While there are many people who are currently in the bottom 50% and will probably stay there; no one is a slave who has to stay there.
My original post (which is somehow unpopular on HN) points this out. I spent my first 30 years in that group and worked my way out of it.
>no one is a slave who has to stay there
That's like saying not everyone who finds themselves homeless must stay homeless, as if they can just choose to go buy a house.
>I spent my first 30 years in that group and worked my way out of it.
And what did the job market look like over the those 30 years versus today? You probably weren't competing with infinity AI bots at every resume application.
Not here to steal your thunder and deny your individual success story, but the tired "I pulled myself by my bootstraps" doesn't mean anything to the people who are strugling.
> amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed
not true, labor productivity has been steadily increasing: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
workers are simply capturing less of the economic value generated by their labor.
Increases in labor productivity is a curious thing to think about. Do I deserve more wages for using AutoCad instead of drafting paper?
- The amount I'm working hasn't increased. Still an 8 hour day.
- My job honestly is easier than it used to be; certainly less menial.
- Strictly speaking, the education requirement is actually lower. It's easier and a lower bar to learn to become a decent designer in AutoCad than to learn to effectively use old drafting tools (even though the formal four year engineering degree still takes four years).
But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
Salaries aren't about what someone "deserves" or "should earn".
Those in control will try to capture as much of the return as possible. How much value the worker captures is based on their relative power (ability to move to a higher paying employer, scarcity of skillset, laws such as minimum wage, etc).
> Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system.
And I think that by "firms" you really mean some combination of executives and investors/shareholders. That is where the gains have been centralized. Do you really want to argue that management and investors deserve to have more of the gains? What have they done that makes them so much more valuable than similar groups in bygone days?
the argument is productivity gains are increasingly driven by technological advances, which are spurred by capital investment. for example, if a company purchases software that increases their accountants productivity by 5x, should those accountants immediately be paid 4-5x more?
I would contend that the accountant should not - it should flow to who bore the cost of the input (capital owners). however, if you starve labor of those gains, it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function, which implies some level of redistribution by the state is needed.
> it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function
This is becoming less and less true, because now consumption is becoming dominated by asset owners, to the point that a good jobs report is bad news because it means the fed are less likely to drop rates and through that inflate asset prices.
> now consumption is becoming dominated by asset owners
absolutely true. I am not convinced that consumption can be wholly fueled by asset owners though.
idk, if we look at a lathe, where the factory bought the lathe, this makes some amount of sense (although a closet full of idle lathes isn't worth as much as a factory full of lathe operators making stuff on lathes).
a saas subscription is (per user) probably cheaper than a lathe, easier to stop investment into (no need to resell to recoup some of the loan, just quit paying). A closet full of unused saas subscriptions is worth even less than a closet full of idle lathes.
And yet, these subscriptions make the knowledge worker even more productive (in dollar amounts) than a lathe operator.
obviously a knowledge worker can just subscribe to claude and start building, but building in a vacuum isn't worth a lot more than the closet of saas subscriptions. It's a mutal dependency, and it's the combined efforts of the team that results in this tremendous value add. I wonder if there isn't something there that is above and beyond the capital input and the risks associated with deploying that capital.
But maybe that's an argument for workers of the world uniting and founding their own companies together
If using autocad does indeed make you more productive, then your 8 hours per day of labor generates more value for your employer.
Where the benefits of that end up is one of the most fundamental questions of politics. As you note, there are arguments for it to flow to any combination of several different groups. Deciding how much goes to each group is what politics is all about, in the end.
In practice what happens is that on average the tool-user's wages go up slightly but most of the jobs in the field are eliminated, and the resulting large profit mostly goes to managers and financiers.
Looking at cohorts of workers, automation tools like AutoCad reduce the expertise needed and commodify the job, which reduces leverage and thus per capita wages.
Consider the taxi or unskilled worker examples here:
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/a-new-look-how...
All to say, as an individual, individuals rationally try to maximize leverage in a negotiation to capture the increased output. But what happens to classes of workers in different jobs varies. My take is that capital appears to be gaining leverage over wages back from many classes of workers, even if some limited classes of expertise are stable or gaining.
I think it is pretty clear that knowledge workers are internalizing the gains that newer and newer tools (and higher and higher rungs on the global economic ladder) have provided them, while at the same time capturing less of the overall gains that are being had.
Basically it's taking fewer bodies to create more value, and that value creation is so intense that even workers getting "ripped off" feel like they are making bank.
Productivity is just aggregate output of the economy divided by the number of people-hours worked. You can argue about if that's a useful thing to measure or if the measurements themselves are accurate or if you should capture more of the output, but at root it's very simplistic. If you can use AutoCAD to generate more drawings than using paper which you (or your firm) sells for the same price per drawing, then your productivity did go up. Is that meaningful? Less certain.
More productive companies earn more revenue and can offer more compensation to try to get better workers. That's why software engineering pays more than many other occupations. It's not because they're nice.
But for this to work, employers have to believe that hiring better workers matters.
> Should I capture the increased output
You do capture the increased output by benefiting from a society where the cost to build safe buildings has drastically reduced.
Just because you don't get an immediate financial benefit doesn't mean you haven't benefitted from the increased output.
And many laborers have retirement accounts and pension funds that are also capital owners, so they benefit from increases in capital too.
Assuming you don't retire during one of the periodic market bust cycles. I think a lot of workers would rather see more return on that increase in capital now.
r>0 is not the problem, r>g is the problem, and that one's a lot less morally ambiguous.
> Should I capture the increased output
yes
Thats a good list of questions here’s another good thought provoking line of thinking:
As someone trading labour for a wage should I adjust my productivity to match the tools I’m using? That is to say if I’m using CAD should I bother using the tool to raise my productivity? Or should I just match my old hand drafting productivity rates? Should I attempt to raise my productivity rates with these new tools to meet or exceed the best rates from my coworkers?
What can we do to align my interests with those of my employer?
> Increases in labor productivity is a curious thing to think about. Do I deserve more wages for using AutoCad instead of drafting paper?
Please...
> But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
No, only your boss deserves to gain from you productivity increase, that's obvious.
Fair, but the year over year growth of labor productivity has been really consistent, as has consumer prices:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=tjto
So in terms of how much consumers are making in relation to their expenses, it's been remarkably steady this whole time.
yes, but wage growth has not tracked productivity: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1X020
household expenses have been increasing without commensurate wage growth, resulting in lower savings: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
Chart goes up, but you really need to look at percent change. Over the last 25 years it's averaged about 2%
observation_date OPHNFB_PC1
2000-01-01 2.99256
2001-01-01 2.58092
2002-01-01 4.27146
2003-01-01 3.68422
2004-01-01 2.97991
2005-01-01 2.18582
2006-01-01 0.99665
2007-01-01 1.58927
2008-01-01 1.30737
2009-01-01 4.07061
2010-01-01 3.15513
2011-01-01 -0.02491
2012-01-01 0.93870
2013-01-01 0.59941
2014-01-01 1.00795
2015-01-01 1.27023
2016-01-01 0.61567
2017-01-01 1.49513
2018-01-01 1.40965
2019-01-01 2.13337
2020-01-01 5.30657
2021-01-01 2.06281
2022-01-01 -1.46786
2023-01-01 2.13277
2024-01-01 2.91010
2025-01-01 2.25154
2% is average. 1-1.5% is considered a slump, while anything over 2.5% is considered a boom. for instance, the post-ww2 boom (1947-1972) averaged 2.9%. at that rate of growth, a country's total output per worker doubles in roughly ~25 years.
Is this inflation adjusted?
Is this inflation adjusted?
The chart you're showing, absolutely reflects the reality of some of the most productive segments of our economy.
Ford now makes more cars, with fewer people. Sears used to have people who took photos, laid out catalogs, opened envelopes (with checks in them).... Amazon has none of that. We replaced switch board operators, with mechanical, then digital switching. More calls routed, fewer people required. go back 45 years and "draftsmen" was a job - replaced by auto cad.
All these industries have seen massive productivity.
Are the people flipping burgers more productive? Plumbers? Welders? Teachers? Nurses? -- to some extent yes, because of technology but not to the same extent as the previous businesses. Anything that qualifies as "service economy" work has not seen the same gains as Ford (see: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/phenomenal-gains-in-manufactu... )
One cause for lack of productivity gains is Baumol's cost disease, which generally affects organizations involving N different people (for N>1) where for one or more reasons N cannot be meaningfully reduced, if at all. Orchestras are the canonical example.
There's a variant of this, however, in activities that are done essentially by 1 person (as is true for most of the examples you mention in your last paragraph). You can improve their individual productivity - more pipes fixed, more joints welded, more patients well-attended to (*) - but in the end you cannot get rid of the individual doing the work in the way automated manufacturing has.
(*) even with a nurse though, this starts to break down for activities where time is a critical part of whatever is being done. Sometimes caring well for a person is primarily a matter of spending time with them, and this is certainly true for teaching as well. In such cases, you cannot make the person "more productive" no matter what technologies you might provide them with.
Construction notably has had productivity losses since the 80s afaik.
Good call out, and an interesting case I was unaware of.
It looks like this is another facet of the "bitter medicine" that we're seeing around housing in general.
The first article that I saw pointed out that there is a correlation between productivity and regulation (of construction permitting etc). I would believe that because it has a corollary with "housing starts" (a measure of new construction) and its regional strength in the red/south portion of the country.
> The situation on the ground is unchanged - the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us.
My understanding is that "fixed" costs like rent and groceries have gone up and taken more of people's budgets, while wages failed to catch up with this inflation.
If that's the case, it's markedly different from "situation on the ground is unchanged". I don't know how the overall pie is doing, but it has not grown enough to compensate for the labor share drops shown in the article. The slice on my plate is certainly lighter.
We have one of the worlds most prosperous economies, and half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing.
I'm going to go on a limb and say half of the US is not living in abject poverty? Nor can I get behind the idea that quality of life for folks is on the down trend.
I own a Medicaid home care agency in 13 states. We serve low income families and our caregivers, who earn $12-18hr which is higher than minimum wage, absolutely struggle. We have created food banks and housing assistance because even working people are a few sick days or one car repair away from homelessness.
I would encourage you to go work with average Americans in average towns. The facts on the ground are stark and eroding.
Median income in the US is much higher than $12-18/hr, it is about $30/hr. 25th percentile make $20/hr. 10th percentile make $15.58. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.htm
So, the people you are mentioning making 12-18/hr, are literally below 1 in 4, to less than 1 in 10. These are not “average middle class Americans” except maybe in that higher end. These are low wage earners and are far below “average”.
I mean absolutely nothing normative by this statement, nothing about whether this is good or bad or what we should do policy, socially, whatever. But saying someone making below the 10th percentile is average is like saying someone making $75/hr is average.
They are within 25% of the of the median. So they are the lowest range of 50% of the bell curve.
I would fully get behind us paying service providers far more than we do. To wit, it baffles me when people are upset about how much we allocate to pay for services that go to older people, but then we don't do any effort to make sure the services are provided by younger people. Indeed, we seem to go out of our way to make sure the people providing these services are, themselves, low income. It is baffling.
But even this feels like it is overstating things. You say folks are one car repair away from being homeless. And there is a lot of polling that shows people would struggle to pay for repairs. But full on homelessness? I can only assume that you are describing towns/cities that offer no transport assistance at all, that lands people into being so dependent on a car. I believe it, but I struggle to think this is literally half the nation.
I had an employee that was homeless last week. We were trying to figure out what to do. We’ve been looking into buying apartments to convert them to condos for a first time home buyer program, but the economics are hard to make work. We have considered buying a camper that can move around
The reality is that when 40% of your income goes to rent, how many days of work can you miss before you can’t pay rent? If your car breaks down, how many days will your employer tolerate while you try to get it fixed, assuming you have the money to fix it.
You don’t have to believe me, just look up the state on the percentage of Americans living pay check to paycheck.
The stats on "living paycheck to paycheck" are notoriously rough. With some people that make 300k a year claiming they fit that category.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your given scenario. I actually lost my car when I was younger. Was a rough few months while I got used to commuting without one. And I was lucky to have a roommate that kept my cost of living down.
And I remain a proponent of increasing pay to service providers. As well as finding ways to provide cheaper living conditions. First time home buyer programs are great, but seem unlikely to be relevant for the workers we are talking about? I see the median age of home care nurses in rural areas drifts up to 51-53. Which, granted, I see the median age of first time home buyer is drifting up. I don't think it is as high as those workers, though.
I do think there is a problem here. I just don't think it rises to "half the nation lives in abject poverty."
Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite.
That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make workers so productive that they could afford to buy the cars they make.
A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough to put their own children in child care. So child care fails to revolutionize the world the way the car did.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
Innovative companies at the beginning of growth cycles are always generous to employees. Look at all the perks showered on staff for a long time. They are starting to pull that back as they get monopoly market power.
I would agree with you that more capitalism would be better but only if you acknowledge that monopolies are not capitalism; they are the logical end and death spiral in unregulated and unmanaged capitalism.
They are the black hole that a dead star collapse into.
> A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough
They are highly productive but the market doesn't value them. It values the backup forward on a basketball team - an almost completely non-productive job - more than a doctor. It values the owner of a company at $1 trillion, which is obviously absurd.
It's not "absurd"... you're confusing moral value with economic scale.
A $1T founder is rewarded for building a massive system that employs hundreds of thousands of people, moved technological progress forward dramatically, and has positively affected the lives millions.
A doctor provides life-saving care, but they are physically limited to helping one person at a time. A backup NBA forward might not save lives, but their work is broadcast and monetized across millions of screens at once.
Arguing that entertainment is "non-productive" ignores human nature. People gladly pay to be entertained. If sports have no value, do you feel the same way about books, art, and movies?
To get to the Baumol effect, the movie actor can perform once and be seen by millions whereas the theater actor has to perform at least once a night in front of one roomful of people. So the former can get paid more, a lot more.
Probably the highest paid athletes in the world are european soccer players and the thing there is that these salaries can be justified in terms of the value top players bring in a game where being relegated can bring the money train for a team to a halt. You don't see working-class soccer fans complaining about this (they feel the value!) but the owners and many representatives of capital get fuming mad about it.
(Funny, growing up in youth soccer in the US taught me to think of the game as an exercise in Brownian motion where there are too many people on the field who aren't held accountable. It wasn't until I had an argument with a recommender system that couldn't accept that I hated soccer that changed my mind and turned me into one of those sports fans who rolls out of bed Saturday mornings to watch the Premier League that I realized how high the stakes are in the European game.)
In European football, relegation is a zero sum outcome for society: One team is relegated and another promoted. On average, equal numbers of fans are happy or sad.
Acting is about art, which brings up different issues and value. But looking at broadcast sports, the marginal value of doing that work is still zero: If that person didn't play football, someone else would and the entertainment benefit would be the same (excluding the few extraordinary athletes like Messi).
Well in American football we have the problem of teams that lumber on playing terribly for years and years. Like we have three teams in New York state and the Buffalo Bills (upstate) are good and the two in the city (the Giants and the Jets) are awful year after year.
If there was some accountability those teams would be better or would be playing at a different level or not at all. So I'd argue pro/rel is a net plus because it leads to better play. Personally I watching the New York Red Bulls (Major League Soccer) play in person but overall soccer is the US is not up to international standards.
What blows my mind about soccer in the UK is that interest is so great that they can support two leagues below the Premier League and I know there are leagues below those. When I went to the Cornell/Syracuse game which is a legendary matchup that attracts a lot of youth players in the audience I was just thinking of the depth and width of the pyramid of soccer play from Kindergarten all the way to the world cup which is what makes the soccer universe so compelling. (Kinda wish more of us enjoyed college soccer!)
> So I'd argue pro/rel is a net plus because it leads to better play.
From a sports perspective, sure, I agree. I've often thought that the only non-competitive position on a sports team is owner. If anyone else, coach or player, performed for one year like the some team owners do for decades, they'd be out of a job. Owners won't agree to losing their jobs (fire the bottom 5%?), but relegation ... but would the other owners want the biggest market, for example, relegated?
But this discussion is about societal value. Whoever wins and loses, every game is net zero in entertainment value (whatever that is worth): 1 win and 1 loss. Every relegation is net zero: one team promoted, one relegated. Every championship: 1 team wins, another finishes 2nd, etc., no matter who it is.
I understand how the marketplace works, but the value - the contribution, the marginal value - to society doesn't match it.
The $1T business owner doesn't provide nearly that much marginal value to society.
The backup (or starting) NBA forward provides zero marginal value - if they didn't do it, someone else would and the outcome for society, entertainment, would be the same. It doesn't matter how well they play basketball; that doesn't make it more entertaining (with a few extraordinary exceptions). People in the US enjoy college sports, where performance is much worse, as much as professional sports. People root for their 'bad' local team as much as a good one: they do prefer winning, but that is a zero sum tradeoff with the other team's fans.
The income for the two examples are the results of economic distortions.
My kids' teachers provide contribute far more than the latter, and far more than they are paid.
> Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite.
Only someone blinded by ideology.
> Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite.
In Capitalism surplus economic value goes to the Capital class, so it seems like it is working as designed.
But if that capital accumulation is unchecked it destroys the very market forces such as competition and price setting functions through supply and demand necessary for capitalism to work. So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth.
> So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth.
Why do you assume that Capital class has an ideological loyalty to the capitalist system? If they can get rich without having to compete or do any kind of effort, don't you think they'd prefer that to actually 'working' for the money? Once they've got theirs, do you think they care about what happens after?
Some goes to the capital class, some goes to workers. The Marxist eschatology is that there are pressures that cause the fraction that goes to capital increases over time and breaks the system.
Look at the good deal that the UAW has gotten for auto workers in the system, both US car makers and the union are pretty happy right to keep this system in place and shrink in the face of technological change like electrification not to mention abandoning small cars for large cars that are profitable for now.
(Funny how I often I see "good old boys" driving Asian compacts because they can afford Asian compacts, and I see office workers driving big-ass trucks)
>I own a Medicaid home care agency in 13 states. We serve low income families and our caregivers
There's an extreme selection bias there. If you run an agency that works with low income families you're not going to see a representative sample of the overall population.
> There's an extreme selection bias there.
Maybe. Unfortunately, what digitaltrees wrote here is ambiguous. It could also be read as this:
Our caregivers serve low income families. Those caregivers, who are our employees, earn $12-18/hr which is above minimum wage. Our employees absolutely struggle. Our employees are the ones using food banks and housing assistance because many are one car repair away from homelessness.
digitaltrees: which interpretation is correct?
I think the latter interpretation is correct. As in digitaltrees runs a business that does not pay its employees a living wage, who then have to rely on food banks and housing assistance.
We don’t set the Medicaid reimbursement rate so we have no control over wages either. We work to be very disciplined about unit economics and fixed costs so as much money goes to caregivers as possible but if Medicaid pays $22hr you can’t pay $20 because you won’t cover the payroll taxes, workers compensation insurance, or required clinical and other admin expenses.
We have a private pay arm as well, so the other extreme. I also have a roofing company. And I look at the data.
If you read the rest of the comment you’ll find it’s about their employees rather than their clientele.
It’s both. The clients are more impoverished but the caregivers also struggle.
I got into this to build software to lower admin expenses and improve operations for an otherwise under served industry. We are making progress and have supported thousands of people in having stable careers. The horror stories I could tell of other agencies exploiting people due to incompetence or malice are shocking.
I think “abject poverty” is probably overstating the case a bit. I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.
>I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.
???
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
Note this is already inflation adjusted, so "housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing" is already accounted for.
That chart doesn't make the case you think it does. Real median household income rising can be explained by things like more dual earner households (more women working since the 70s), more hours worked, etc. The household income can rise while the wages can theoretically remain flat or even fall.
The more relevant statistic is that median real wages have only grown by about 29% across 40+ years (~0.6% per year)
Since 2000, medical care costs have risen by 121.3%, hospital services by 275%, college tuition and fees by 196%, compared to consumer goods by 86.1%. Things like TVs and electronics went way down in costs while the essentials have absolutely skyrocketed. The cheap stuff drags the average down.
You need a lot more than a single graph to argue against the quality of life going down for Americans.
>That chart doesn't make the case you think it does. Real median household income rising [...]
Where are you getting household income from? It clearly says "Personal Income"
You're right, I was mixing up the related charts. Still, this makes my case even stronger since personal controls for adding more earners to a household. If real median personal income only rose from ~$28k in 1974 to ~45$k today, that's a 60% increase. Median personal income rising by 0.9% every year over 50 years compared to healthcare rising by 3-4% every year since 2000 is not a gap you can ignore. Necessities grew at nearly 3 to 4x the income rate.
So the case that quality of life is trending downward is still completely valid and shows why you can't just point at a single graph and say "see? line go up therefore quality of life fine"
>Still, this makes my case even stronger since personal controls for adding more earners to a household. If real median personal income only rose from ~$28k in 1974 to ~45$k today, that's a 60% increase.
Labor force participation rate for both males and females has basically been flat for the past decade, so the recent discontent about "costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse" is still unsupported. Moreover the 1970s was never an era of stay at home moms. Female labor force participation rate was already 45%, against around 78% for male. It also topped out at around 60% (so basically 15% increase, max) with the rate for males dropping.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001
Right, except I acknowledged my initial statement was wrong because I was basing it off of household income when you were actually referring to personal income. So why did you spend the effort refuting that?
Median personal income is per individual, which is obvious. After I corrected myself the question then became "did the typical individual's real income keep pace with the cost of the things they can't avoid buying?". The answer is no. And I already showed why.
> Nor can I get behind the idea that quality of life for folks is on the down trend.
There is a pretty clear down-trend post-COVID here.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2025-economic-we...
Mississippi, the poorest state, has similar median income to Germany. I’m pretty sure 50% of the people there are not in abject poverty.
Yes, but German society is structured to require much less energy, just as Dutch society is structured to use much less land.
If you put Germans whose lives function in a US-style, even just getting to work will be a huge drag.
Misery depends on the structure of society. Here in Sweden I can walk to work. This means that I'm spending zero money on travel to work, and that my travel to work contributes $0 to Swedish GDP. But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.
This is one way in which GDP can be extremely misleading.
>Here in Sweden I can walk to work.
That's you. but nobody In Sweden drives to work?
I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing.
For example, ,ost of my jobs in EU that me and my gF had required a car to get to work because companies put their offices out in the boonies to save money so walking was not an option, and neither was public transport.
> But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.
GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white collar jobs after Covid proved it's possible and salves the environment
>That's you. but nobody In Sweden drives to work?
A smaller fraction than in the US. I think most people I know drive.
>I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing.
Well, it isn't. It's about how walkable environments are.
>GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white collar jobs after Covid proved it's possible and salves the environment
Well, they may disagree, but the whole point is the goal of society isn't GDP, since GDP is easy to game with things like creating situation where people are effectively forced to waste energy, drive to work-- that sort of thing.
>but the whole point is the goal of society isn't GDP
Then why are people(westerners mostly) bullying Japan for stagnant GPD growth and refusing mass migration to boost their GDP?
Per Wikipedia, in 2018:
* Median household income in Mississippi: $44,717
* Median wage in Germany: €5,370 per month, equals $73,565.
So even the individual median wage in Germany is more than 50% higher than the median household income in Mississippi.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
This doesn't actually seem to be true based on a quick googling, i.e. Germany has somewhat higher median income.
But in addition to the raw numbers, you have to keep in mind that they don't account for cost of living and that different countries account for various services differently, especially health care.
Totally understand that; but it counters the assertion of “abject poverty”. Perhaps relative poverty is a better descriptor but abject poverty is someone living in cardboard tents by the riverbank. Regular poor is living in section eight housing or subsidized housing. I don’t think we have 50% of Mississippians living in abject poverty.
As a gulf state resident, a whole lot of us live in shitty old shotgun houses that have been patched up hundreds of times just waiting for the next hurricane to wipe us out finally.
I would assume this doesn't account for Germans having different healthcare costs which will aboslutely wreck the average American household with how fucked our system has become.
Do you believe about 50% of Mississippians live in abject poverty as put forth by GGP poster? The kind of poverty you saw in Dust Bowl era workers or Weimar era Germany or 3rd would today? Sure people may not be middle class but they are not in abject poverty where they steal chickens, shit on the street, sell their relatives into servitude and barely have two changes of clothing. At least I don’t think so. What those people live would be middle class for counties where there is lots of abject poverty.
People watch too many influencers and lose track of reality -it’s not all Beverly Hills and Kardashians and Real Wives of X-town everywhere. That’s fantasyland.
I find it hard to believe 50%, but we are not doing well down here. Homeless populations have increased massively and the average cost of a single bedroom apartment has gone from $500-1150 in my area since I moved here in 2008. Meanwhile the minimum wage is still $7.25/hour up from $5.50/hour in the 2000's.
Gentrification has also bought up a lot of the older areas and created what feels like faux poverty aesthetic gated apartments and over priced eateries with random shit sprinkled in like Axe throwing places. (Please someone where did all of these axe throwing places come from)
Things are also different down here because you see a massive loss in land/homes lasting families for generations due to petro-chemical and now data center companies buying up whole towns to bulldoze and built into pollution centers.
I'm seeing a lot more cars with doors, bumpers and windows missing because people just need their scrap heap of a car to continue to get them to work across town. We don't have walkable cities and even homeless people sometimes have cheap bicycles with scrap weedwacker motors bolted on because they can't afford a car or the time to get a license.
Someone else brought up the real truth, a lot of us are living paycheck to paycheck and entirely beholden to how much room we still have on various credit cards to buy food after paying bills. Eternal debt slavery is becoming extremely common.
It's not abject poverty, its just dire circumstances for a huge number of everyday folk.
This just demonstrates that there is something wrong with the statistics.
Okay and what exactly do you get for that income? What are the material outcomes for having a "higher" income than Germany? Because I know very few people that would openly choose to live in Mississippi versus Germany.
The GP claimed that 50% of the US lives in abject poverty. Mississippi our poorest state compares with Germany in terms of median income and Mississippi itself does not suffer from 50% rate of abject poverty. So by extension the US as a whole doesn’t suffer from a 50% rate of abject poverty (begging, trinket selling, selling off relatives, shitting in public, etc.) rates of abject poverty. That’s stuff you’d see in the Great Depression or Weimar Germany level stuff.
Okay so thank you for avoiding the question, once again what does a higher income in the southern US get you that people in Germany don't have?
People want healthcare, they want cheaper housing, they want high quality jobs, they want lower crime. Material outcomes absolutely matter and there is zero evidence to suggest that "high incomes" in the US translate to anything except more blood for corporations to extract.
If you have negative net worth and the bank's money, not yours, is buying your food and housing, you are in abject poverty, just that the system is propping up your survival for a while.
A lot of the US looks like they're doing great but fits into the category above.
Non-poverty would look like:
* You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent
* You make enough money to be on trajectory to save up to pay for your own food, housing, transportation, and medical expenses in retirement when you are physically unable to serve the workforce
> You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent
So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?
> and medical expenses in retirement
You're saying I'm in poverty because I understand and intend to use Medicare?
These are trivially poor definitions.
Medicare is a different thing, the government should be providing medical care for everyone to begin with, regardless of what they make.
My definition is if you need to borrow money to put a roof over your head, at the minimum renting, you're in poverty. There are huge chunks of the US population borrowing money to pay for rent.
If your locality doesn't provide adequate public transit, then a car is a necessity, and the onus is now on the locality's economy to make sure everyone can access that; if your locality doesn't pay high enough to afford that car without borrowing money, then yes, you're in poverty. Alternatively, the locality can choose to provide adequate, safe public transit, and the bar of poverty would change.
Most of the US doesn't think this way because they're delusional and have been conditioned to feed the financial system and pay for things with money they don't have.
> So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?
I think this isn't as unreasonable as it seems to everyone living it. It's like water to the fish.
We are conditioned that everything should be fueled by more and more debt, and your dollars should constantly be devalued so you can't stop grinding.
The little people can never be allowed to just work enough to accumulate what they need and then take it easy.
Sorry but you’re smoking crack if you don’t think quality of life is deteriorating in the US. The anxiety and misery is literally palpable.
"Abject poverty" is currently defined as living on less that $3 a day and dealing with things like chronic hunger and exposure.
The best approximation would be the homeless population in the US (about 500k people), but even then most homeless would not even qualify.
"Half" is a gross exaggeration.
The homeless number under estimates people with unstable housing that aren’t on the streets.
I assure you that when your basic housing and nutrition are uncertain and missing even a few days of income will result in cascading effects of hunger and homelessness, the underlying stress is overwhelming.
It doesn’t have to be this way, we don’t let bullies steal all the toys on the playground and destroy the very ecosystem that they want to have fun in, why are we letting capital accumulate in the hands of the most effective capitalists at the risk of destroying the very markets that let them succeed.
I say that as a capitalist, if we lose the system because we allow unchecked Monopoly and wealth concentration, we won’t get it back.
I agree with all those things, but if we start making up numbers and definitions we're at risk of undoing actual progress.
Maybe it feels good to say "actually everyone is a victim of capitalism", but it muddies real necessary work when it comes to determining whether to prioritize how resources need to be allocated between a disabled person living on the streets vs a graduate student who is currently just a little underwater on their credit card payments.
That’s a reasonable perspective. I would ask though, whether the fear of muddying the discussion is weaponized to create the impression of complexity, a broad range of intractable causes that lead to the conclusion that any solution is futile. The forces that benefit from the status quo deploy this quite effectively
What's your definition of "abject poverty"?
I find it hard to believe that half the US would meet the criteria for any reasonable definition.
The BLS and Federal Reserve both have data showing that the median American household has >$1,000 left over every month after all ordinary expenses, including housing, healthcare, and iPhones.
Any definition of "abject poverty" that includes a comfortable lifestyle and $12-15k excess income every year is not a serious definition.
>and half of the US is living in abject poverty
Source? All the ones I know of use questionable methodology like: "being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage".
Out of curiosity, what is your expected baseline of what the average person and family in the US should be able to afford?
"should" is a pretty woolly concept. "should" we have to work at all? UBI proponents don't think so, and that apparently that has 45% support. What's hopefully obvious is that not being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage is a far cry from "abject poverty".
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/more-amer...
I mean fair, but not relevant?
I'm asking you the question because a statement like 50% of [population] is making a claim to some notion of what they expect society to look like
you introduced the benchmark "not being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage", though I would expect a modern day society that makes any claim to be wealthy to be able to have above 50% of it's population to be able to support something like that as that would indicate they can support a small family
You're saying that's not a good benchmark, so I'm trying to understand:
1) Do you have a different benchmark?
2) Is your key complaint that being unable to own a 2 bedroom house doesn't mean that individual or family is in "abject poverty"? In which case fair, though I would ask what does mean abject poverty for you?
It seems like you're saying 2, but I want to be sure
>In which case fair, though I would ask what does mean abject poverty for you?
The exact number is heavily contested[1], so I know better than to provide my own. That said, the official poverty lines are a pretty good place to start, and it's pretty safe to say is that whatever the line for "abject poverty" actually is, "2 bedroom apartment on 1 person income" is pretty far away from that. That claim doesn't require me to provide a specific poverty line.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#M...
> All the ones I know of use questionable methodology like: "being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage".
Well, that's (at minimum) what you need to raise a family and replace yourself in the labor pool.
In addition to that being obviously different from the line to “abject poverty”, it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken…
> it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken
Either the Western world allows people the financial and real estate resources to have children in the next 5 years or we're all fucked. The tail end of the boomers enters retirement in 10 years and while millennials can take care of the boomers, eventually we will need to be taken care of, and for that millennials need to have children now as long as we still can.
Biology requires two people for the system to work.
Economics could as well and the system would still work.
That's a laudable goal, but hardly "abject poverty"
In the 1950s Americans were doing a good job at replacing themselves in the labor pool, and household size was larger and houses were smaller.
Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?
> Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?
Because the American suburbia developers want some nice chunky profits. It isn't enough any more to sell glorified matchsticks and cardboard.
Can you define “abject poverty”?
The United States doles out >$30K/year in welfare spending for each person (not household, each person) under the poverty line. And that's just HUD/SNAP/Medicaid. The idea that any significant portion of the US is living in "abject poverty" (let alone half!) is hysterical in every sense of the word.
The poverty rate in the US is 10%.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...
It's actually far better than that! When people hear "poverty rate", they think "the percentage of people living in poverty". That's not what the census data on poverty is reporting, though. The census data is based on income only. It excludes in-kind welfare (Food Stamps, HUD, and Medicaid) and even excludes some welfare that is paid out in cash (like refundable tax credits). In other words, the census data is reporting that 10% of Americans earn under the poverty line. The number living under the poverty line is far, far lower.
> half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing.
The 350 million Americans looking at the top of the US economy and crying need to turn around and take a look at what's behind them.
There are something like 7 billion people behind them, worse off.
It can be both. Look at the stress hormones people live with. Look at other stats like rising infant mortality, dropping IQ etc.
> Look at the stress hormones people live with.
https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/poverty-and-...
Does being poor cause mental health issues, or are mental heath issues a cause of poverty... The answer here clearly better access (read free) to mental heath care, and it wont have the impact one would think (see the UK data).
> Look at other stats like rising infant mortality
You mean the attributions tied directly to maternal complications: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr033.pdf
The thing is we changed how we collect this data, to something that would be considered bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/13/maternal-mo... - There are tons of criticism on how we collect this data, they are valid, if you dont like this source, find another its a mess of our own creation.
> dropping IQ etc.
The largest root cause is that people spend too much time on their cell phone dumbing themselves down. Think about that one... no one feels the need to elevate themselves, they are happy to spend time on what amounts to leisure. Would you have sympathy for the person who gets fired cause they chose to play 18 holes of golf 5 days a week rather than do their job?
You seem to be arguing that people are poor because they have mental health issues or are otherwise to blame.
The first article you site contradicts that position.
I would also argue that regardless of the cause, society should provide mechanisms to take care of people. Just like we don’t blame people for crop failures, hurricanes, fires or other catastrophic health issues, and instead have insurance, fire departments, etc. poverty is a consequence of social policies. We should strive to create social policies that have less inequality because they are more stable, safe and consistent with what everyone would want if they didn’t know what role they would occupy.
"Listen folks, it's no big deal if you can't afford rent or to purchase a house. Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket. Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"
> purchase a house.
This is a functionaly unmovable number. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
> you can't afford rent
Because we as a society have drastically changed how we use housing: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/more-than-a-q... -- Multi generational housing was a thing. Having roommates was a thing... the premise of "golden girls" would be lost to a modern audience, because cohabitation is dead. The premise of "bosom buddies" would get canceled for its insensitivity, but no one would understand because boarding houses are all but gone.
Building every one in the world an American style house, would cripple the globe. Concrete, Sand, Copper, Wood are going to become massive problems long before we get close to getting the job done.
> Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket.
You think that vacation homes are causing the housing crisis? Are eroding wages elsewhere? The industry of these locations is TOURISM, and a fair bit of it is international. (Not Nantucket).
It's not like whaling is going to make a comeback to make Nantucket a viable place to live again.
> Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"
Plenty of Americans look at musk and say "lets eat the rich" ... the problem is that the rest of the world has those same hungry eyes for us.
This is like an abusive parent saying "Stop crying or I'll give you something to really cry about."
This isn't relevant to this discussion. You're welcome to go complain on a message board in Mumbai about wages in the US.
It absolutely is relevant to the discussion. Many Americans are ungrateful and envious of the Americans wealthier than them, in spite of the fact that their own living standards are still far far better than the majority of humans on the planet. And some of those hypocritically think that the wealth of richer Americans belong to them, but would never consider giving their own wealth to people across the globe who are poorer than them.
The people who want money from people richer than them never want to give up their own to the people who look to them with the same eyes.
> half of the US is living in abject poverty
Anyone who believes this has absolutely no concept of what abject poverty looks like.
If you’re only complaint is the word “abject”, I encourage you to try to live on anywhere from $7 to $15 an hour, in a part-time job that doesn’t guarantee week to week how many hours you’ll get.
That is a very common reality.
My room mates all lived on slightly above minimum wage with part time hours. They were not in abject poverty. They were just plain poor. They still had cars, phones, video games, food, water, shelter. They each had an ACA plan heavily subsidized and probably were eligible for other welfare but didn’t use it as far as I am aware.
Do that for your entire life with no advancement. Do that with kids. Do that with elderly parents. Do that until you can’t physically work.
The range of human experience is longer and broader than being a 20 something single young person
If you remove the word abject, the argument is:
> half of the US is living in poverty
This statement is also false.
> I encourage you to try to live on anywhere from $7 to $15 an hour
That's the bottom quintile, not the bottom half. The Median household income is $83,730, which would be more like $41.50.
This is quickly going to devolve into 'nobody suffers unless their suffering as at least as bad as the worst suffering that exists', so let's just go ahead and get that out of the way and move on to something less pointless.
GP could have just said "poverty" and the vast majority of unconstructive discussion that has followed could have been avoided.
Instead they said "abject poverty" as an emotional emphasizer, and people rightly called them out.
Yep. A lot of such people use words in order to elicit the reaction a legitimate use of said words would get, because they don't want the usually more muted reaction/attention using the correct word would get.
It's not about being pointless, it's just plain wrong.
The median (not average) household income in the US is 80K USD. p25 is 40K. p10 is 20K. They're struggling, sure.
But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.
> But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.
But you could. There is no law of the universe that is going to stop you. Words are something randomly made up by humans.
> it's just plain wrong.
Again, words are completely made up, so it can't really be wrong in the traditional mathematical sense. It could be misinterpreted, perhaps. Of course that is dependent on how you've chosen to randomly make up "wrong".
I know it's against the rules, but oh my this reminds of me a certain other popular forum site in its heyday.
Have you looked up the definition of abject poverty? It is "the most severe and hopeless form of human deprivation". It's the subject of the conversation, how is that pointless?
While you are able to look up someone's definition of abject poverty, the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment. It is unlikely you can look up his definition (before he replies to those who have asked for the definition in force).
If only their definition matters then their only purpose in this thread is to derail the conversation, or in other words railroad everyone else out because only they can be right.
People responding reject that, because if you're not being specific, you're not making an argument, you're just here to be an asshole.
Since you've made this point, I've gone ahead and reported that comment.
> because only they can be right.
Suppose their definition for abject poverty is: having an income equal to or below the median income. Yes, they would be right. Is it a problem that they are right?
However, you would also be right in agreeing that having an income equal to or below the median income equates to half the population, so you are wrong to think that only they can be right. Of course, that assumes you have used my definitions for these terms and not your own. It is likely that, once we are updated with your definitions, that you were right all along. What are your definitions for the terms you have used?
That's the beauty of discussion. You don't need to guess. You can ask!
> the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment.
This is absolute nonsense. We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other. You don't get to just handwave baldly incorrect statements as "well maybe he just has a different personal definition" without basically rendering literally all conversation moot and pointless.
"Yeah, I know he said 2+2 is 5, but you don't know he defines 5" is just as patently silly.
> We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other.
Common doesn't mean ever-present. In practice, it is impossible for everyone to converge on a shared understanding for all terms. There are provably many people in the world who have never even heard the term "abject poverty" before. They cannot possibly understand what the term means to you. Fundamentally, "abject poverty" can only mean in that comment what the author believes it means. That may overlap with your understanding, but it also may not. We can also prove that he is not a mind reader and thus cannot tune it to your understanding. He is limited to his understanding and his understanding alone.
A good faith actor who believes there may be a discrepancy in understanding will seek clarification. That is what a discussion forum is all about. If one does not want to participate in discussion, why be here?
[Citation needed]
dozerly. "We have one of the worlds most prosperous economies, and half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing." Hacker News, 30 Jun. 2026, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734916
the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80%
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
>the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80%
>link for "Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989"
income =/= wealth
I don’t think that makes the argument you think it does. Wealth concentration is even more extreme.
The point is that his original claim is either incorrect, or is not supported by the source he cited.
That doesn’t logically follow. If the claim is 1% control 80%.
And the counter argument is wealth is different than income the implication is that wealth inequality is 1) lower than income inequality and 2) more important for some unspecified reason.
But if wealth inequality is more extreme then that means 1% control GREATER than 80% of wealth. So point 1 is false. And point 2 is most likely irrelevant because greater concentration likely means whatever harm from one category would track the other category
Bigger picture truths don't justify smaller picture lies.
The linked view of the chart is distributed by income percentile, the title is "Wealth by income percentile"
>The linked view of the chart is distributed by income percentile, the title is "Wealth by income percentile"
That's still measuring wealth, not income. The correct statement to draw from the chart is that top 1% by income have nearly as much wealth as the bottom 80%.
the only difference is whether or not its realized, no? they're using wealth to avoid that
It's amazing how few people are willing to admit there is a problem. Spend 45 minutes driving around the state I live in talking to random people and it's painfuly obvious this is reality that some. I suppose it's mostly epstein sympathizers who are pushing the narrative that everything is perfect and nothing needs to be done.
>the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us
I don't see where the article made that claim. Are you making it yourself and can you support it? That sounds like something that would happen when technology improves. What the article does do, is pose a question that it never answers: "When the labor share falls, it means that productivity, prices, or both [which?] are growing faster than wages."
The Fed tracks this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=tjto
Unit cost on labor has increased at a more or less steady pace this whole time. Ergo, it's not so much that labor is decreasing as other things are increasing faster.
It's hard to argue that technology is increasing labor productivity an order of magnitude faster than it was in the 50s. It's more likely something else in the dataset (returns on capital/rent) is exploding in value.
Is "unit cost on labor" the same as "the amount of labor being generated per person"? I don't believe it is, especially so in the context of the article's question which I raised.
That overall drop in share of income since 2000 is related to the "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot warned about in 1992:
"It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care, that's the most expensive single element in making a car, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south."
While Perot was warning about NAFTA, the jobs did go elsewhere: China and other countries with cheaper labor. Globalization led to labor competition, which increased the supply of workers.
Meanwhile, companies captured the value of the increased supply of workers. More cheap labor = more production, for a world that had latent demand for cheaper output. It ended up a net benefit for businesses (capital owners), and overseas workers. This is at least partially if not significantly where the growing gap between wage growth % and GDP growth % comes from.
The macro economists were right that globalization would be more efficient overall for the world, economically. But that came at the expense of the US labor that saw its wage growth eroded as a consequence.
>the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed
im not really understanding what you mean. i dont get how labor is generated, in particular. do you mean to say the amount of total hours dedicated to labor per person or something else?
he's referring to labor productivity, e.g., the economic value produced per unit of labor input. it also _has_ changed significantly, as seen here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
however, unit labor costs has also been increasing (although they remain variable): https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2026/productivity-up-0-3-percen...
Probably to referring to hours worked, eg. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP
no, he's almost certainly referring to labor productivity. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
It's just rent.
Rent for the homes we live in (including "rent" as mortgage payments to the bank)
Rent passed through as costs to the consumer for the businesses we patronize.
We're stuck at home more affording to be able to do less so the people who own don't have to work.
I have a similar PoV. I think rent seeking without sufficient checks is one of the biggest problems in our economy.
But the underlying problem that people aren't paid enough is still true. Outside a few fields, most people are underpaid. It's even more stark when measured against productivity increases during the same time periods. That wealth went somewhere. It wasn't to most people.
People have a tendency to get upset when they realize these kinds of things.
From outside it doesn't look like not being paid enough. It looks like affordability problem. Prices in general are too high.
Rents in general are part of this. Both for housing and commercial property. Somehow getting profit from both rent and appreciation is the goal of the system.
Well that is what population voted for and choose not to overthrow system for so maybe they deserve it.
Underlying rent are other things going up - property taxes, input costs like labor and materials, and insurance.
While we must be mindful of greed and abuse, we need to include all underlying costs before just assuming people are cranking up rents. I'm not a landlord but I own property and the costs are gotten vicious lately. Labor is expensive, materials are insane, energy costs, and now insurance are suffocating. And in states with high property taxes, watch out.
Energy is one variable. But have things gotten less efficient as things keep going up in prices? Is more labour needed to produce the same? There is stuff like regulation forcing more expensive things. But in general if there was efficiency gains things should keep the same price or drop. Somehow this isn't really happening very well.
But my thesis really is that these things are not underlying the rents. But rents are actually underlying these costs. And well in general the rent seeking economic process build on ever growing valuations of everything.
Your theory is just that - theory. Just talk to someone who owns property, or do the research. Insurance costs, Up, energy, Up, when something breaks, it costs more to fix it. It's basic input cost math.
I don't know what 'efficiency gains' means here. Maybe you're thinking of car production or software development. Insurance goes up due to climate change, due to insurance companies taking advantage of a poorly regulated environment, whatever other reasons. Energy goes up due to world events, due to more people, due to extreme weather. Labor costs go up due to inflation.
It feels as thought the 'rent is too damn high' crowd needs an enemy, and the enemy is landlord. And again, not a landlord, but I'm getting bitten by high costs of keeping property. I didn't even talk about the property taxes.
If I WERE a landlord, I'd either pass it along to the tenant as higher rent, or I'd sell the damn thing.
Times are getting worse and the landlord class is an unnecessary middleman.
And again, the headline is the labor share of income is at an 80-ish year low. The landlord class grew too big. We want many of them to be forced out of the business either by law or by economic loss forcing sale.
A home is a fundamental human right. Maintaining rental profits in the face of economic hardship is not.
Restaurant operations is one of the places where it's most clear the rent is the biggest problem.
You can say restaurant workers need to be paid more, and ok sure, but where is that money coming from? You pay labor, food suppliers, rent, utilities, taxes, and... where exactly is the money to pay workers more coming from?
With the number of empty storefronts in my city (not to mention restaurant closures) it's clear owners aren't making money hand over fist or there would be many more restaurants.
Restaurant workers in my experience are more likely to go to more restaurants and they can't because... their rent is too high and the price of food at restaurants is too high.
The common denominator with all of it is money being sucked away from people doing work and people hiring work by... rent seekers.
The "labor share of income" is exactly this. How much money is getting sucked out of the rest of the economy to prop up the do-nothing class. Retired people whose retirement investment was selling a house for much more labor than they bought it for and real estate owners doing as little as they can to maximize income they aren't earning.
Indeed. It's a game of monopoly where one person owns all the property, and everyone else is just rolling the dice and, paying rent every turn.
And it's wild to me how we can't seem to figure out how to bring the cost for this down. Building affordable houses should be our no. 1 priority.
If you build plenty of houses, they become affordable. The latest Affordable Housing is mostly gov-enabled scams, at least in San Diego. They are being made for greater costs than the luxury housing since the funding is guaranteed. Then the same developers are incentivized to keep all rates high by building less.
https://sdhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/107_Workshop_RAN...
I don't want affordable housing mandated, I want the opposite. Force builders to build 1500 sq ft three bedroom apartments. Flood the market at the top end with SPACE and then tax vacancies of these spaces aggressively.
This sets a price cap, makes these high density spaces affordable for people who want to live their whole lives there and not just their single 20's, brings diversity into communities and drops the floor out of the prices on these single occupancy closets going for $2000 per month.
This isn't just about residential rent. Commercial rent squeezes businesses, forcing wages downward and prices upward.
Just tax corporate owned vacancy. In a slump there will be apartment buildings that are mostly empty because they refuse to lower the rent as lowering rent triggers property re-valuation.
Office buildings sit mostly empty for the same reason.
Tax the owners to punish the bad bets and eternal growth expectations of banks to force them to use the space to the benefit of the community or be forced to sell when they run out of money. Use zoning laws to prevent the destruction of units to avoid taxes.
We already don't have enough housing and you want to increase the cost of entry to build? This would just reduce competition and new builds even further. Hard to see this kind of policy coming out ahead if any increased utilization of existing buildings is cancelled out by the lack of new ones.
No, I want to crash the price of real estate, bankrupt the incumbents, and realign incentives to be focused on resident quality of life.
Percentage return on investment has nothing to do with the basis. Investors will have to serve a lot more people to get the same absolute return. The percentage return won't change all that much for actually building and operating. The year over year growth in valuation and rent is what needs to go (buildings go through several sets of hands over the first decade or so anyway).
repeated efforts to develop "dwelling units" on a large scale have collapsed in corruption. There are financial players who are very aware that there are vast amounts of monthly monies at play. This is not unique to the USA in fact it is a repeated theme in the capital economies.
The US Federal Housing and Urban Development Department was intimately involved in the Savings and Loan collapse of the late 1980s. It was punted around and repeated in the 1990s, but the stock market gains of the late 1990s diluted the news in public. That phase culminated with a dot-com bubble collapse and ultimately, the 2007 dollar credit crisis. Leveraged purchases of real estate were part of that financial soup. Many of the players from that time were "boomers" and their seniors, so living memory of those circumstances are now fading. There are many, many non-fiction books about these topics.
I don't know which people you're referring to, but the conclusion is pretty clear: the _share_ of the total pie captured by labor is shrinking. Productivity is increasing, but capital is capturing all, or almost all, the benefits of that increased productivity and economic growth.
AI is going to further exacerbate this inequality.
Time to re-read Capital In the 21st Century.
Since 2000 the biggest economic change is software. While most workers doing physical jobs have only made themselves slightly more efficient (or maybe mass immigration has maybe even reduced efficiency in some sectors), some workers (tech workers) have made themselves hundreds or thousands of times more efficient and captured the gains as equity (either in their own startup, their job, etc...). The positive is that growth overall has still lifted living the average living standard.
Benn Jordan just released a new video proposing that we are not in “late stage capitalism” and instead we are currently an offshoot of capitalism called “leverageism”.
In the video he describes how when people like Elon Musk get to the level of wealth that they are at, it becomes far more beneficial for them to take from (or stunt) the spending power of lower classes than it is to add to their own net worth dollar figure - simply put, the former moves the needle far more in their favor than the latter.
Definitely explained the idea of our slice remaining the same while the overall pie around us is getting larger.
*Edit: Benn not Ben
FTA's conclusion:
"Is this decline a distinct change from the recent behavior of the labor share in the U.S.? Along the two key dimensions we investigate, our answer is no. <later> ... and they provide little evidence that it will evolve differently from past episodes."
This conclusion seems to be against "this time is different" arguments. Should we be generally encouraged by similarity to past declines pre-2000 or bearish and think that there is more drop to come like the 2000-2007 and 2007-2019 periods they graph out?
I guess there is no way to predict other than check back in after time passes.
> I guess there is no way to predict other than check back in after time passes.
Welcome to the dismal science of economics, where the rear-view mirror is crystal clear but the windshield is totally fogged up.
Bearish, they are already working as hard as they can to replace everyone with AI or at least Actual Indians playing AI
The submitted title is a bit sensationalist given the article’s conclusion:
> Is this decline a distinct change from the recent behavior of the labor share in the U.S.? Along the two key dimensions we investigate, our answer is no. First, the labor share’s trajectory post-COVID broadly follows the cyclical patterns observed in earlier recessions, with a decline during the recovery phase that mirrors historical dynamics. Second, the decline in the labor share since COVID is driven primarily by within-industry changes rather than shifts in economic activity across sectors. Taken together, these results suggest that the post-COVID decline follows the same cyclical patterns as earlier recessions and is driven by the same within-industry forces, and they provide little evidence that it will evolve differently from past episodes.
What I find more interesting is the sharp drop around the early 2000s
I don't think so. Opening sentence is this:
> The labor share of income in the U.S. is currently at its lowest-ever level in the post-war period.
Agreed on the 2000 drop though. Would be interesting to read a retrospective on that.
Is it not the dot com bubble pop?
Or the world trade center?
it feels like every share of income is at its lowest except for the ultra wealthy.
It's not necessarily limited to the ultra wealthy, but outside of a few key areas (as someone mentions, those profiting off of the inflationary spike, those in the real estate market, etc) it is more or less the case, yes.
It’s not. There are plenty of non-wealthy people who make money from things other than their labor.
Small-time landlords are an example, as would be anyone who owns a small business and draws cash from profits rather than taking a salary.
im going to be controversial and say no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire.
anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor (but not vice versa, you can work as a robber or corporate lobbyist). from line cooks to wall street ceos to open source volunteers and stay at home moms who dont get paid but still work. landlords and executives count because management is labor too.
if your income comes from a trust fund or owning properties that you dont manage thats a passive reward for doing nothing. you are not productive. you are a parasite living on the back of everyone else and expecting indefinite rewards for a fixed amount of work you or your parents did years ago.
Thankfully basic English is required to have any power anywhere so you're not ever putting my trust fund in danger. Back to work, wagie.
What if you volunteer 30-40 hours a week but pay your bills with rental income? What's your position on that?
> no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire
No one should start a business and pay salaries to their employees instead of themselves?
What if I see that a biotech startup is working on mRNA cancer vaccines, and I want to invest in that? And then it pays off and I make money off of it?
> non-wealthy
> landlord
If you think these two things are compatible you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble.
Not American here. I know a couple of people who took out a second mortgage to buy a small appartement to rent out when mortgages rates were at 1%. They probably have €300k in equity in both the primary and secondary home. And around €600 in income from the rental. I do not consider that wealthy.
I would describe that as having invested in an appreciating asset (like stocks), and their main income comes from the gains of the property prices as they go up in value. Moreover, they leveraged themselves via loans to acquire income even faster.
These gains might be realized at any point if they're willing to pay taxes for them.
Having lots of money but choosing not to spend it doesn't make you any less wealthy.
Most landlords are leveraged up to the hilt. They may look wealthy from the outside but a close look at the figures says otherwise.
You don't have to be especially wealthy to own a second house and rent it out. That isn't poor, certainly, but I wouldn't call it wealthy either.
The original comment said "ultra wealthy".
> you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble
My bubble of... not-ultra-wealthy people? Are you saying I need to talk to more ultra-wealthy people? This makes no sense.
The annoying/sad/infuriating thing is the ultra wealthy don’t have “income.” Technically, according to IRS rules, much of what they experience (housing, food, etc) should be classified as income. But their lawyers and accountants help them keep that looking quite low.
I used to think this - but when I talked to a tax lawyer friend and we walked through the steps they take, usually they're just deferring taxation that does end up getting paid by an entity eventually.
Capital gains tax is clearly lower than income tax. So why did you change your mind?
Not the commenter you replied to, but one thing to note is that capital gains tax (at least in the context of investments in corporate equities) is applied after corporate taxes. Profits and reinvested earnings are taxed as profits, and they're two of the key components to valuing an equity.
As such, when comparing income tax and capital gains, you should add the impact of corporate taxes. Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.
> Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.
You've been sold some BS. Usually this is because you're required to take a "reasonable" wage for your role in a company. Otherwise I guarantee you every independent contractor out there (among others) would be operating in a way that made 100% of their income business profit, rather than wages, as it has enormous tax advantages. Approximately everybody tries to find out the least they can take as wage income without pissing off the IRS, and sets their "wage" to whatever that is.
Many locales have laws that do not allow remuneration above the 'reasonable wage', to prevent tax circumvention by having employers spread wage payments across multiple family members of employees, but I am not familiar with any jurisdiction with a minimum reasonable wage law or regulation. Could you please link some source for the claim that business owners are required to accept a 'reasonable wage'?
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Yes, that is intended to disallow officers from avoiding taxes by being compensated via ‘loans’ and other means. I can’t find any case where dividends or buybacks were found to be violations of that rule. https://cpataxteam.com/blog/s-corp-owners-are-you-paying-you...
Do the math for yourself. Paying corporate taxes on profits, then dividend taxes on what gets paid out is not a savings versus paying income+payroll tax (which comes from money that is treated as an expense at the corporate level).
There are more taxes than federal income and corporate taxes. State taxes and especially the ~15% of wages that go to FICA also matter (the topic was small businesses, so presumably the owner's not making so much more than the FICA limit that this becomes negligible).
I've often wondered why we don't abolish corporation tax and instead tax capital gains and dividends like normal income.
This would be my personal preference, as I believe that voters often overlook the impact of corporate taxes, and there are just too many (different) taxes.
Because capital gains taxes really discourage selling which gums up the economy
Wouldn't prices of assets just rise to compensate? People still need liquidity.
From what I understand, this lack of liquidity is not an issue in ‘financial markets’, but can be a problem for other assets such as housing.
If the income was earned through dividends, maybe this would be a reasonable argument. Most of the time stock just gets bought and sold by investors rather than the company itself though, so it's not clear why corporate tax would have anything to do with this.
Sure, the stock price should somehow be tied to the actual value of the company, but for a while now it's been mostly indistinguishable from a Ponzi scheme other than a few companies that do sometimes decide to buy back some stock, which makes it slightly less sketchy but if the value is from the company buying it back, it's a lot closer to debt or a bond, which is not at all how anyone treats it.
I agree that in a bull market, many corporations are not purchased and sold at book value. That said, we are on the largest bull-run in history, so we shouldn’t treat this as the norm, and base all our long-term decisions on the current situation.
So if I'm understanding correctly, your argument is that it doesn't make sense to make people who make more money pay the same rate of taxes as regular people do because we should ignore the fact that they've been doing it for longer than ever before?
I’m saying that we shouldn’t base our tax policy on a bubble. The dot-com bubble was treated like a solution to the federal deficit, and it wasn’t.
So if I buy and sell Pokeman cards I shouldn't have to pay any tax because WotC pays corporate taxes?
I am not saying that one party paying taxes means that no counter-party should. I am just saying that the impact of different structures should be accounted for.
Their income would be capital gains regardless of whether they use these methods or not.
If they donate the wealth to their own foundation to continue to hold close and control, it doesn't get taxed. If they borrow against the wealth at low interest rates until they die and the basis is stepped up ("buy, borrow, die"), it doesn't get taxed. Certainly, deferment is a component, but there are obvious examples of the very wealthy operating in a manner to avoid taxes entirely when they're able to (realizing the benefit of the wealth without having to realize a taxable event). Trust stacking is a recent fad as well, although I don't have enough data to say whether it is a material concern from a tax revenue perspective.
Silicon Valley Is Obsessed with 'Trust Stacking,' and the IRS Doesn't Like It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48727963 - June 2026
The cases you're talking about are all delaying taxation, not eliminating it. Eventually someone has to draw that wealth - the foundation has to spend for public benefit to be eligible for 501(c)3 status, for instance.
How Elon Musk's secretive foundation hands out his billions - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-... - January 23rd, 2019
"Spending for the public benefit" has a lot of latitude.
I also don't think they addressed how borrowing against the wealth doesn't require any immediate taxes (and is often low interest, given how being a billionare means you get more favorable terms). There's nothing stopping someone in that position from just deferring taxes on the money they currently have, borrowing against it, and then investing that to turn into more money with taxes deferred even further so that they can use the proceeds to pay the previous deferred taxes and keep the difference.
That requires their investments to keep going up in value. That doesn't last forever, the assets that people borrow against eventually need to be sold to pay back that loan. When they sell to make payments, those are taxable events.
If investments didn't grow at a faster rate than interest, why would anyone ever invest money at all instead of putting into a savings account? I don't know why it''s hard to imagine that a large loan with a relatively low interest rate might be able to be invested for more than enough profits to pay off the taxes and the loan with some to spare
Yes, and that's fine. That's still paying taxes…
How does it work if the loan defaults and those assets were used as collateral?
I'm not a tax lawyer, but I think if you default on a loan, the collateral changes hands, which is a taxable event for you as if you sold the asset, at whatever value the unpaid portion of the loan was. So you pay tax.
If any significant part of that article is true, I see self dealing that would already be against IRS code. It's just a matter of enforcement. We often already have the laws to solve the problems we identify.
Was your ‘friend’ Jeffery Epstein?
This report is only about wages, so even if the ultra-wealthy reported their real sources of income, they wouldn’t shut up as “labor” the way this defines it.
Capital gains not being considered earned income is simply sensible use of terminology to categorize different ways of amassing purchasing power. For example, in order to carry out the linked analysis.
It has nothing to do with the IRS or taxes.
Income goes straight to a person, capital gains is a little return from other people generating income. Basically a MLM lol.
even with this scam the top 1% of earners still have more annual income than ~75% of the population
Not at all. The real estate share of income is probably at its highest among a lot of people who belong to the non-labouring class, but are far from ultra wealthy. But it's nice to have a scapegoat, isn't it?
If you belong to the 'non-laboring class' you are by definition the ultra wealthy. It's wild how much people are willing to slide goalposts to make themselves feel better.
It hurts the definition of the words when you use ultra wealthy to refer to the top 50%...
You think 50% of people don't labor?
While about 50% to 60% of the adult U.S. population are active W-2 wage earners at any given time, the percentage that relies on labor exclusively (meaning they have zero capital income or assets to fall back on) sits right around 40% to 50% of working households.
> 40% to 50% of working households
Not people then.
Are you arguing that the other people in a household are laboring, or do you think they're counting pets?
Ultra wealthy literally means "beyond wealthy". A double digit percentage of the population, maybe 30-50% belong to the non-laboring class.
If I was talking about "ultra obese" people, you wouldn't assume I was talking about everybody who has a couple of extra pounds?
That most-recent spike during/post-COVID really puts into perspective just how unreasonable low-wage employers were to be so hysterical.
Capital be praised that capital owners are back on top.
May the low-waged ever be trodden upon and forever know their true place.
Those that died or became disabled during covid are mewling degenerates.
Their cries of 'illness', 'poverty', and 'homelessness' are precisely as useless as the wailing and lamentation of women in their menses, a farcical thing to be dismissed and ignored.
May the Fed be ever in your favor, Amen
Highly suggest adding "hysterical" to your internal vocabulary filter.
Not OP. But respectfully disagree. Reads appropriate to me.
"Related to or marked by Hysteria" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysterical
Hysteria being "behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess" which seems to be exactly what OP was trying to say.
The origin of the word is a bit darker than its meaning, unfortunately. It comes from the Greek word for Uterus. You can kinda fill in the blanks from there as to how it came to its modern meaning.
Let's add dumb, lame, sinister, grandfathered in while we're at it if we're litigating roots nobody thinks about on a day-to-day basis...
> The origin of the word is a bit darker than its meaning, unfortunately.
We should all just stop speaking. The origin of too many words is problematic. Just think of how many were coined by racists and misogynists!
Are you aware of the irony of complaining about people being hypersensitive while you're overreacting to someone explaining why some people might find a word offensive?
Nah, that's knee-jerk. Don't have a particular horse in this race, just explaining why some people might react this way to the word if they're aware of the history behind it. We as a society can determine whether or not we like certain words in our vernacular.
My point is: who cares about the origin of the word? IMHO, no one should. Unless the word used in a way meant to offend, it's fine. Otherwise you're kind of cultivating offense and over-sensitivity, helping it survive and grow, which helps no one.
It's trickier than that. There's a lot of people who are naturally aware of the history behind the word, and it's tough to remove emotion and intent from that history. Sometimes things bother people, and it's nice to understand why before deciding if you should do anything about it or not.
In particular, people with uteruses can be hyper-aware of the etymology, and I've had several inform me about it in the past, which helped me decide to avoid it.
virtue signaling of the highest degree.
Nah, I don't care either way. Just explaining to the person why the definition isn't the whole story.
Raise the minimum wage to ~$25-30/hr
Before anyone says inflation, there will be more consumer spending and thus more cash flow in the middle and lower class
Sorry, growth mindset only applies to handouts for companies and billionaires. Those are the rules!
For what its worth Ross Perot had an ominous take on the effects of free trade back in the 90s with his "giant sucking sound" observation.
The root of this started in the 70s as the New Deal coalition decayed and Keynesian economic theory fell out of favor among the elites.
To be fair their were good reasons at the time to think it wasn't working either.
Worth noting that the Bretton Woods system was -not- quite what Keynes wanted...
No, yea that's fair. I think he'd be even more confounded about the current state of affairs though. Just my read.
Obviously the solution here is for workers to also become shareholders.
Bit of a double-edged sword, that. Worker-owned businesses are great, but if you instead make workers minority shareholders, you get... the modern retirement system, and inflated asset prices that benefit the ultra-wealthy far more than common investors.
This is the position I am in, I work at an ESOP company and it’s been quite lucrative to be an employee owner.
The US has historically been quite opposed to the workers becoming shareholders.
Except for all the companies that issue shares and options as part of employee compensation.
this is mostly in tech. starbucks barista is not going to get any stocks
Starbucks sells its stock to its baristas at a 5% discount every 90 days through payroll deductions.
https://www.starbucksbenefits.com/en-us/home/stock-savings/s...
The barista can buy $SBUX every payday. The inverse of sell on vest.
More accurate to say that the US has been opposed to workers controlling the firms they work for. But the capitalists dangling just enough of a morsel to get the workers to dance 80 hours a week, but without the ability to actually control anything, and without majorly diluting? Chef's kiss.
None of those gives voting shares to employees.
Every share is a voting share. There are a small number of weird cases (e.g. Meta super-voting shares limited to Zuck), but your statement is broadly false.
Even if true, why would that matter? This is about distribution of wealth, not additional responsibilities.
I think this is part of a long term development where technology and globalization slowly erode workers bargaining power. Basically you only build a factory in the US if you can keep labour costs low enough and the manufacturing automated enough so that you can still compete with other manufacturing hubs.
The longer graph (starting at 1947) shows the shift in 2001 on more startlingly
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS85006173
Corporate profit vs Labor income divergence (only up to 2018)
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/08/corporate-profits-ve...
Fascinating. The 2001 shift aligns well with China's entry into the WTO.
Other countries in the world have manage to keep workers bargaining power in the face of globalization and technological progress.
I think in the case of US literally killing workers and union people is a huge part of why US workers lack power and why US unions are so impotent.[0]
[0] see Battle of Blair Mountain and what work Pinkerton mainly did from its founding to WW2, as examples.
> Other countries in the world have manage to keep workers bargaining power
Such as? They might have managed to maintain it for privileged subgroups of the workforce but not for the average worker.
Interesting that most of the decline happened in the 2000s. The graph shows a large decline from ~2000 to ~2008 which continues after the GFC before going up a bit in the 2010s. The drop off since COVID is comparatively small.
isn't this the expected/intended outcome of the economic policy we've held for a generation or two?
the capital/labor class gap increases when total returns on capital investment exceed total wages+redistribution to the labor class, and the gap shrinks when that's reversed. the market ~controls the capital gains and labor wages knobs, and society decides where to set the redistribution knob.
the article investigating the post-covid drop and concluding that it's normal is an interesting rhetorical device. on one hand, relief that nothing crazy is happening. on the other hand, disappointment that we've accepted a growing inequality gap as normal. the gap was already at a post-war max going into covid, the floor gave out 20 years earlier and covid was just gas on the fire.
advancements in automation and tax codes that benefit capex over payroll will continue to incentivize business to shift budgets from labor to robots.
I don't have time for a longer comment, but AIUI this is mostly a statistical illusion caused by changes to US tax law- previously income that was attributed to 'labor' shifted over to LLCs/S corps for more beneficial tax rates. The doctor, lawyer, financial advisor, CPA etc. that in past decades would have had his/her income run through a W2 arrangement shifted to becoming a one-person corporation
Do you have any evidence for this, at all?
Sure
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2013b_e... https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/wp-107.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu/~yagan/LaborShare.pdf
Thanks very much for providing those sources.
That said, it's a huge pet peeve of mine when someone makes a statement, and then provides sources to back up that statement, but the actual sources contradict their original statement.
You stated "but AIUI this is mostly a statistical illusion caused by changes to US tax law- previously income that was attributed to 'labor' shifted over to LLCs/S corps for more beneficial tax rates." But then your very first linked article states "First, about a third of the decline in the published labor share appears to be an artifact of statistical procedures used to impute the labor income of the self-employed that underlies the headline measure."
I think there is a huge difference between 1/3 (while still a lot and an important factor) and what you wrote, "mostly a statistical illusion", especially since other substantial factors proposed in that article are things like offshoring.
I'm a bit skeptical that you absorbed these 3 pieces in the time it took you to respond (they are 27, 29, and 63 pages, respectively), but they find a range of effect sizes here- the other two a bit more strongly. I feel comfortable with my original statement, though I suppose there's always room for nitpicking
No, I completely read the first article. It was quite clear in what percentage of the decline in labor's share that it attributed to differences in statistical assessment of sole proprietors. I then looked at the abstracts of the other two. The third one basically completely agreed with the first ("We find that reallocating activity to the form it would have taken prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 accounts for 30% of the decline in the corporate sector labor share between 1978 and 2017."), and that's when I wrote my reply.
Frankly, I don't know how you can call this "nitpicking". In no definition in the English language is "one third" remotely the same as "mostly".
You read a 63 page paper today?
They seem to conveniently not have enough time to provide that in the comment
Sure matches my anecdotal experience.
How much of an effect it has at the national statistical level I'm not sure.
Exactly. Crazy you are getting downvoted for having the most informed comment here. The other aspect of this is the rise of franchisees in America. Previously, the salary of the manager of a corporate store would be measured as labor income. In a franchise, it would be measured as capital income.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/the-rise-o...
Okay, so say AI & MBAs are successful in replacing the labor spend of corporations on every level? What happens to "the economy"?
It transitions back to a more feudalist state. The series finale to "you will own nothing and be happy."
That is, if they're successful.
Is there any reason to believe they won't be?
The sheer number of people who would have nothing left to lose would probably fight back, literally, at that point.
People tend to get excited when they can't eat and despite its timidity America is exceptionally well-armed. That sounds cute in a post drone strike world, but if the government attacks its own citizens like that, they'll have a hell of a time defending that position to the rest of the world. Humanity is usually slow on the uptake but eventually settles on "how about you just go fuck yourself" even if the party takes a sec to get going.
Who knows. I think it's better to err on the side of optimism despite the grim outlook.
That has already happened. The entire industrialized world is feudal. Young workers who are experts in their fields working full time can't afford a simple home. Young business owners who employ several people full time can't afford a simple home.
Not much. Early economies relied on mutual trade. I give you X and in return you give me Y. Soon we realized that you cannot always give Y in return immediately, so we invented accounting to keep track of your promise to give me Y at some point in the future. As time went by eventually we stopped caring about getting Y back in return and started taking an interest in collecting the promises themselves (i.e. profit).
Why would someone want to collect promises? That seems rather silly, right? What having a lot of promises gives you is social standing. People treat you differently — better — when they give you their promises. If traditional labor goes away, the economy simply becomes you promising to hold those who have things in the highest regard; to be there as their friend when they call for you to. That is the same modern economy we already have but with less steps.
Yikes. Good to know that labor shares used to rebound after crises, but since the 2000s and the dotcom bubble it has basically been downhill only. So don't expect any of this to get better unless we roll back technology to the last millenium.
It's not the tech but who sees the benefits. The issue at play is the monopolization and concentration of power.
Ie, why can one guy who is insanely wealthy due to stock valuations take loans against that to pull various levers of power. We didn't elect him, we need a way to control that outsized influence.
Not technology - that's only downstream of politics.
No political administration in my lifetime (!) has made policy decisions against the interests of tech monopolists. The closest we got was Lina Kahn's FTC.
> So don't expect any of this to get better unless we roll back technology to the last millenium.
Where do I sign this petition?
In general, though, I'd be perfectly fine with time being frozen in ~August 2001. Was it perfect? No. Was it better than where we are and looks like we're heading? Yes. Without a doubt.
Technology isn't the problem. The problem is the generation in governing power through the last 2 decades has no problem burning down the country's future to maintain lavish retirement funds for themselves.
I think it's more nuanced than that. There surely are plenty of cases where that is the case, but it's also a natural effect of hyperfinancialization, which many really do believe to be a "net positive" for the stability it brings. There's also the natural tendency of consolidation and centralization of power, and the natural counter-balance to that has been suppressed. Then you have legislative incompetence, the general failings of scientific governance aggregating over time, and many other structural flaws that are deeply seated and long-running.
We shouldn't just be pointing at the (very much real) stupid greed, there are many rotten components occurring simultaneously.
What happens if large cohort of Boomers retires and stop working, instead living on their savings? Labor share of income drops. If you remove this effect, the labor share of income is flat - confirmed by last week's analysis in The Economist.
Pertinent data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPPOP65UPTOZSUSA
According to the article, automation (including software) and other technology "advancements" are important factors.
I think it's becoming clear that we are reaching a point where UBI must be debated in Congress subsidized by something that doesn't wreck economic growth and probably doesn't target capital investment.
Are there hollistic analysis? I generate income with my labor, but I also save in retirement and investment accounts. On analysis like this that we typically see, are these two things competing? Are we really just seeing a rise in retirement savings?
Could it be because the productivity is up?
Because labors in China are extremely cheap. And they are getting cheaper and cheaper in last decade, despite the GDP growth.
As a hardware founder, I’ve seen the opposite until very recently. Labor cost has been going up much faster than inflation, at lease in hardware assembly.
Do you have a source?
Equity should be a normal part of compensation for non-executive employees in addition to their wage/salary and benefits.
There's nothing about being in the C-suite that magically endows one with motivation based upon stock price, but we pretend that there is.
Is there a reason to think this is anything more than increased productivity? And that therefore the case has to be made that labor, more than capital, should benefit from that increase? I’m not saying that argument can’t or shouldn’t be made, just saying that “it was different before!” Isn’t the best argument.
The longer I participate in the economy the more it starts to feel like the end stages of a game of monopoly. There is nothing left to own unless you already are wealthy and the only way to get ahead is luck.
The 2 main differences between our economy and Monopoly is that 1) in ours, some people start with properties and more money in hand and 2) a Monopoly game takes less time to end.
The most interesting takeaway I see in the labor share percentage graph is the trend that labor share increases into the recession. Post recession share trends down for a bit.
How much of the trend is due to employment trends vs. printing money for the wealthy to get their hands on it first(and profit) post recession?
And yet for some reason all the algorithmic pricing targets the laborers, when apps hunt for whales they target teenagers. Ridiculous.
There is a need for proper pricing for the rich, i.e. Elon can pay a million dollars per meal. Someone is leaving money on the table.
Ha, you just reminded me of something that I read a long time ago. Some history book which relayed a story from some part of islamic world from centuries ago.
A king goes hunting but fails to catch anything. Hungry, he goes to a nearby village. He enters the inn and orders some quail eggs. After finishing the meal, he goes to pay. The innkeeper tells him that the meal costs ten gold coins.
"I did not know quail eggs were so rare in these parts," says the king.
"They are not," replies the innkeeper, "but kings are."
Love this.
Parking and speeding tickets should have income brackets, at least.
In the early Internet I saw this thing, no idea if it’s true but it sounds good (someone can math check it), goes something like:
A person pays $2 to play basketball on a public court.
Michael Jordan gets paid $2k to play on the same one.
A person pays $100 for basketball shoes.
Michael Jordan gets paid $100k to wear the same ones.
A person pays $40 to go see a basketball game.
Jordan gets paid $400k to attend the same game.
Michael Jordan makes about $5 per second.
If Michael Jordan saved all his money without spending a penny for 250 years…
He wouldn’t even have half as much as Bill Gates!
It made me think differently about money and consumer spending.
> Parking and speeding tickets should have income brackets, at least
AFAIK in some countries this exist but my case is more capitalist oriented. Rich people obviously can pay more since they keep accumulating wealth. It is an obvious sub optimal pricing since the low and even middle class rent/mortgage and other services quickly approaching the most they can pay so they can’t actually save and make wealth.
sub optimal for who? ;)
A long time ago I was working for a mid tier founder up in Oregon.
Pipe dream of a startup, no customers, no product. Money and vision, but no direction and the main problem was that nobody would ever tell him "No" (me included) - to everyone's great detriment.
He would certainly fail at this endeavor...
He was the main investor, after all.
At some point we brought on web marketing help - he knew people at Nike. To my surprise, they actually partnered with us - Nike! He also co-owned a web design agency in Portland, so I started working with designers and marketers there.
When I would travel there, he always set me up in the same hotel. Turns out (a year later), he owned it. He owned the damn laundromat next door, too, because it was adjacent to the apartment complex he owned.
After literally 1 beer, we were now going to do a live, in person event in Portland - he knew people and could make it happen. He owned the building where the event would take place.
At the event he started asking if I'd ever leave San Francisco, if I liked Portland. We started talking about rent and stuff.
I find out he's a landlord there - owns several single-family homes (with awful cyclone fencing) and has tenants around Portland. He starts telling me prices etc. Asks me what people are paying in SF. We both laugh over how expensive SF is - sun shafts illuminating our amber beer glasses as we drink to... Idk what.
What happened was I found out that he was rich as fuck, and owned the god damn town, and everything else. His startup was a joke and failed - but who cares, it was a frame in a movie. I cared about it more than he did.
Sub optimal for who??
By design, no?
Yes by design. Basically just by designating one part of the economy as non-productive consumption economy, and the other part as production economy, they create the justification for inflation - so that the government can have free money and take it from the stupid consumers by decreasing their wealth a little every year should they choose not to spend it, and give it (sorry, invest) to the nice productive entrepreneurial capitalist part of enconomy who will somehow reinvest it allegedly (read: mostly buy up shit the former half needs and sell it back to them at markup), the system has a direct wealth transfer mechanism that points from the poor to the rich, it couldn't be any more shameless and obvious if they tried.
I wonder if labor itself will become an anachronism in the age of AI. Perhaps the future economic landscape will be dominated by capital because everyone will own capital. You will command a small army of agents to do whatever you want. You will no longer need to work for someone. You own small businesses far more than you could possibly operate in the pre-AI era and they will mostly operate autonomously with minimal direction and some guidance from you.
Assuming your labour contribution to these agents is 'minimal':
Why would you own them, instead of some well capitalized billionaire?
To the extent that you do have capital, why do you assume that your 'minimal direction and guidance' would outcompete a full time specialist working for that billionaire?
Assuming agent costs keep declining exponentially as they have over the last three years, why would everyone not own some agents? It's not like the number of agents is capped and the billionaires hoard all of them. I imagine it would be more like smartphones, where there were only 50 million smartphones after the iPhone was first released in 2007 and now there are something like three billion. They become more accessible and plentiful over time. Same thing should apply to agents.
And in this world of abundant agents, what advantage does the billionaire have exactly over the non-billionaire? Their employees are less motivated than owner-operators, and they no longer have the scale advantage that large corporations used to have. Each individual can effectively operate like a large corporation, because each individual can have their own large synthetic workforce at very low cost. The scarce resource here then becomes uniquely human insights and real motivation, which entrepreneurs are always going to have more of than employees.
I'm hoping it's likely the powerful cannot monopolize agents. If open models are easy to obtain, and every homestead has solar and large batteries, everyone can routinely charge their robots like Seven of Nine plugging into her Borg alcove. As long as they have the right to repair them, and a monopoly can't fleece you with robot maintenance!
It's basic economics; larger firms become progressively less efficient for the same reason that communist command economies are inefficient, because there's no internal price signals to guide resource allocation. So there's a natural cap on how big a firm can get (in information theoretic terms, there's a hard limit on the amount of information a centralized structure can process effectively).
We live in a world with a severe housing crisis - not shortage, as there are usually enough units, people just can't afford them.
One would assume the difficulty of building housing has gone down with the general progress of technology - and if all else fails, you can just do what they did 50, 100 years ago where affordability was far less a struggle - people, who had less income in real terms spent proportionally less on it.
So did society devolve that an unit of industrial output has become more expensive? Or did money and resources just go into a parallel 'rich people economy', that has created a constant drain on the resources of average people?
Housing is exceptionally vulnerable to capture because it is immobile. AI on the otherhand should see its cost continue to plummet due to competition. Per token costs have already fallen exponentially over the last three years.
I'm not sure if this addresses the point you're trying to make though. If not, please clarify your argument for me.
Until you can eat an agent it's all worthless.
there is no such thing as "labor share of income". It's a measurement you can calculate, but it means nothing tells nothing.
in caveman times, labor's share of income was 100%. Do you want to live like that?
right, so now more than ever... if you're not saving/investing you are falling behind.
We should break up monopolies, revoke the vast majority of work visas, end free trade, and unionize.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk, please leave a downvote to indicate I caused you emotional distress.
> please leave a downvote to indicate I caused you emotional distress.
How deeply puerile.
this is relatively unremarkable for those with an understanding of wage, labor, profit, price and capital.
capitalism will always seek to reduce labor cost. during the epoch of neoliberalism it achieved great strides in this by reducing labor power through union busting by both thatcher and reagan in the UK and US respectively. it has also effectively curtailed any increase in the minimum wage for nearly 20 years as well as reduced protections, regulation and prosecution for wage theft and overtime pay violations which it maintains as exclusively as civil matters while ensuring theft itself from a merchant in turn is always a criminal matter through the primacy of private property.
to learn more i recommend reading Marx's "Das Kapital," albeit its rather academic. Engels "wage labor" is also a good read to understand why housing is so persistently unaffortable but helps to understand why any other good or service slowly becomes so as well.
The problem is we are one step beyond capitalist exploitation as described by Marx - basically the surplus which fatcat industrialists extract from the laborer does not really exist - you have to compete in the market with others who do the same, and offer things at the lowest possible margins, and if you need to be big enough to get capital in, you have investors who demand their profits.
So basically you are squeezed between the public demanding lower prices and the investors demanding record returns. If you are not a monopoly, that is an impossible ask
Basically the only truly profitable businesses left out there is selling hopes and dreams to investors, and shovels to those who build them, which just about describes tech & AI, with companies who regularly manage to 10x their valuations (and P/E ratios)
Marx fails to imagine a world in which labor actually has little to no value.
His worldview is primarily that capitalists 'steal' the valuable labor. However it doesn't seem that that is actually the world we are in. Instead the intrinsic value of human labor seems to be slowly trending towards zero.
And it kind of makes sense, same has happened with oxen labor, horse labor, etc.
> And it kind of makes sense, same has happened with oxen labor, horse labor, etc.
Sounds like we should start imagining a world where we don't treat people like literal livestock, and then figure out how to get there fast
Isn’t it the complete opposite? i.e. high automatization means that a single worker can create many times more value than before. However it reduces the demand for labor and worker bargaining power. So companies have no incentive to pair “fair” wages.
That is true but likely only temporarily. Why is the single worker even needed?
We tend to have a pretty human-centric worldview so if there's a single human working to keep a hotel running, our default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case. You can imagine that hotel at some point in the near future goes from requiring 1 worker to keep it running to zero.
> is the single worker even needed
Because he is? I do not expect for some sort of universal “AGI” to emerge within my lifetime which would supplant humans in every area (of course what do I know.. but still there is no real indication we are even remotely close to that currently)
> default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case
Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.
>Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.
Indeed, but what happens if/when they choose to sell the system and someone else buys it? Now the owner is who is generating the value. Even if he hires some maintenance worker to come by once and awhile and check up on it, it is the system (aka the capital), not the worker that is generating the vast majority of the value.
Then why does every plumber I know own a yacht
Industry cartel.
If you landscaper had one like the plumbers do he'd have his own yacht.
Or he wouldn't exist because you'd buy about as much of his services as you do a plumber's.
low skilled human labor is going to zero. high skill approaches infinity.
> Marx fails to imagine a world in which labor actually has little to no value.
Marxism was an idea formulated especially as a reaction against a world where labor has lost almost all of its value. Which is precisely the origin of capitalism - the idea that money itself can be productive, and thus people who have lots of money can be expected to get more of it.
This was an untrue idea for most of human history, outside of the circles of moneylending and banking.
It doesn't seem like the value of human labor is going away. If you look at luxury goods, they're still "handmade". Telecoms still advertise human representatives. Nursing homes still charge massive amounts for personal service.
What's changing is how much of that surplus value is captured by the workers doing the labor.
This is clearly heading in a direction where the USA is going to elect a huge number of socialists, who in turn are going to enact massive taxes on billionaires and break up the monopolies.[1]
This is why I think the billionaire oligarchs are literally mentally ill. They've won the entire game. They control everything. They live like gods, they twitch a pinky and millions dance.
But their response to all of this power is to seek even more of it, destabilizing the very system that has them on top. You would think self-preservation would kick in. The fact that it is not and that their greed knows apparently no bounds is going to lead to their extinction.
For a long time I thought it was hyperbolic to say so, but no longer -- the billionaires are mentally ill.
[1] https://work.news/post/project-2031/
I very much doubt that. There isn't enough class solidarity to pull it off.
There will be a few who brand themselves as such. But actually seizing the means of production and handing them over to the people? -- The oligarchs will burn this country to the ground before they permit that to happen.
It would of course be lose-lose for everyone. But if a significant proportion of the population starts believing (rationally or not) that they have nothing left to lose it could be problematic.
Remember Occupy Wall Street? Back then the oligarchs were somewhat scared.
I too don't believe that GP's dream is going to happen, but the current momentum is much stronger than in the OWS days. Maybe it's less visible to some because the world has moved into online algorithmic bubbles rather than people camping in front of Wall Street. If they were more scared back then than they are now, it's not because the current momentum is actually weaker.
Well yeah. This is why we're calling end-stage capitalism. What's coming looks like technofeudalism.
All companies are rent-seeking. Selling something is no longer a goal.
Prices go up up up up up.
Oligopolies and price fixing is normal.
Monopolies are normal with little/no controls.
People are getting paid a pittance to the work done.
Unions are their weakest in a century.
NLRB is basically frozen due to no quorum on the head board.
Companies routinely scam and lie at multiple places in hiring pipeline. FTC does nothing.
Neither party (Republicans or Democrats), save the DSA, fights for the American people.
Its all coming to a head, and baskets, and guillotines. Anybody who studies history knows what kind of powderkeg this situation is. Its also the reason the Ancient Romans made panem et circunses (bread and circus) cheap or free. You get riots and revolts otherwise.
I find this metric misleading. Where is the extra money going? To whom? Turns out most of it is not going to billionaires. Bulk of it is going to future investments. If we choose not to do that, we lose out on future gains.
Who owns the capital for those future investments? Who will receive returns on those investments?
Speculation or actual investment? Assuming that the allocation of capital is somehow aligned with what’s optimal for the economy/society seems naive
It's not naive, it's near optimal. The system rewards people who've done well at capital allocation with more capital to allocate, and takes capital away from those who've done poorly at it. And there's no better predict of future performance at allocating capital than past performance.
Well my point was that it might be optimal for the one doing the allocation and maximize their returns. That does not mean its optimal for the economy and society on the whole.
Actually it does mean it is optimal for the economy as opposed to a central planner who somehow has all the information and does planning with precision. These are mainstream views in economics.
Actually markets are always rational, perfectly efficient and there are no speculative bubbles? Of course not.
So its obviously suboptimal, only question if there is a more optimal system.
> central planner who somehow has all the information
Every developed country is balancing that with free markets and its the mainstream view that a balanced system is optimal (the exact ratio is of course something’s that not quite settled).
Yes and going back to the your original question
> Assuming that the allocation of capital is somehow aligned with what’s optimal for the economy/society seems naive
The empirical facts are that the disposable real wages have gone up by more than 50% over the last 20 years. People are way richer now than before and the growth in USA is much higher than any other developed nation other than small edge cases.
The causal link between those two data points is not exactly obvious.
buy shares of companies with any excess money you have and your share will grow
Now consider this against the rising productivity-pay gap that has been widening since teh 1970s [1].
The big picture here is increasing wealth inequality and that has been on steroids since the pandemic.
The only shocking part to me is how people continually and intentionally don't see it or, worse, think they'll be unaffected by it so don't care. You see this on HN where so many people seem to think they'll be Jeff Bezos one day.
But even if that's true, don't you want to live in a society where you don't need armed guards at your house and you don't need armed escorts to go anywhere? Because that's what we're heading towards. One of the problems with American society (in particular) being so car-centric is that it lets people insulate themselves from the rest of society more easily. In cities like NYC you're forced to see and deal with the less fortunate. You can't hide from it so easily.
We don't need trillionaires. We need to raise basic living standards so people have food and shelter and we don't need to separate society into slums and armored compounds.
[1]: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
> The only shocking part to me is how people continually and intentionally don't see it or, worse, think they'll be unaffected by it so don't care. You see this on HN where so many people seem to think they'll be Jeff Bezos one day.
Software engineers are a special kind of stupid: the kind that thinks they're smarter than everyone else.
55%? Ew. We can get it even lower. I want my profits.
I am John Capitalism and I revoke the USA's permission to use my name until they crush labor share of income below 50%.
And the Republic response to this is "soc1lism bad!!"
Not even just Republicans, unfortunately. The generation of Americans who grew up in the Cold War were inundated with propaganda about how socialism would destroy America, and then go and say things like this https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/26/us/politics/moderate-demo...
Yeah. The boomers are a real problem.
You say the boomers are a problem simply because they are old and the young hate the old (ageism), and because they have money and you want it, now.
Boomers created everything you like about this world, including youth culture itself, "don't trust anybody over 30".
Their predecessor generations, their parents and grandparents, believed comprehensively in things you despise.
I know this because I hated the boomers when they were young, and you all sound just like them.
They are a deeply selfish and immoral generation on the whole who make excuses for evil and denigrate anyone tryin to do good. Just looking at their voting patterns makes it quite clear.
Such a lame attempt to defend them by you lol--what makes you think money has anything to do with it? That's Boomer logic; IME, Boomers and right-wingers believe everyone is as self-centered as they are.
the conceit of leftists is that they are godd and pure... but they never are and it NEVER works out, just makes them insufferaby sanctimonious along the way. I was raised completely leftist btw, by good people, but I saw the craven insides of all their friends.
I didn't say the boomers weren't the way you describe, I said you're just like them, lofty ideals, all too human boundaries and self control.
The actual labor share of income is significantly higher when you include employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than overall inflation for decades, and while many of those costs are passed on to employees the employers have also absorbed a significant chunk. If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending.
And no, there's no simple solution to this problem. The notion that something like "Medicare for All" would solve the problem is a total fantasy, disconnected from actual US healthcare economics. Any real solution will have to work on multiple angles including preventive care, PBMs, provider wages, rationing, drug prices, fraud, malpractice insurance, interoperability technology, etc.
Why wouldn't a single-payer solution work? The margin that the insurance companies take for themselves seems like a good place to start. From there it would spiral out to the third to half of time that all of the clinical staff spend just dealing with insurance issues and insurance billing.
There are countries in Europe which have entirely privatized healthcare systems (not even medicare/medicaid equivalents). US tried adopting some of their practices with Obamacare and even that didn’t work out. Singlepayer isn’t really necessary to have a reasonably affordable and accessible healthcare system proper regulation is.
As successful as Obamacare has been it didn't really do much to lower the cost of healthcare or claw back the billions wasted to insurance company profits. There might be some kind of regulation just as effective as single payer, but we've never seen it anywhere in the US.
> but we've never seen it anywhere in the US.
Well just copy paste the Swiss system (of course that’s not feasible both the “free market” and pro “socialized” single payer supporters would hate it). However they have a heavily regulated, reasonably affordable fully private healthcare system.
> As successful as Obamacare has been it didn't really do much to lower the cost of healthcare
It dramatically lowered the cost to consumers. Further, conflating overall healthcare spend with the portion of spend tied to a significantly lower-cost population is apples and oranges at best and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of healthcare cost in general. It's ok to not have opinions about things you know you don't understand.
"lowered" hasn't made much difference. Before the affordable care act Americans spent more and got less for their money and that hasn't changed. Insurance companies are still stuffing their pockets with billions and denying coverage. Americans struggled to afford the care that they needed before the affordable care act, and they still struggle to afford the care that they need today. The affordable care act was a very small improvement, but it didn't move the needle compared to other nations
I'm not necessarily opposed to a single-payer system but the margin that for-profit insurance companies take is a tiny fraction of overall healthcare spending. You could zero it out and it would barely move the needle. And many of the largest commercial health plans such as most Blue Cross Blue Shield Association members are non-profit. There is literally no margin.
Provider organizations spend a huge amount of effort dealing with Medicare and Medicaid, which are pretty close to being a "single-payer solution" already in many cases. From an administrative overhead perspective they aren't always easier to work with than commercial health plans. Plus they have enormous problems with fraud, waste, and abuse.
The mandated low margin is part of the problem. When your margins are regulated, the only way to increase profits is to just make everything more expensive. More revenue, same margin, more profits. Humane health care is incompatible with free market economics.
Perhaps its not compatible. But that’s tangential to the situation in the US, at the very minimum you need to have price transparency in any ‘free market’ system.
I think the point is that we might as well just give up the pretense of a free market healthcare solution and just focus on what's humane.
Is it humane to leave a patient to die in an ambulance when a single-payer nationalized healthcare system is over capacity?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/06/englands-nhs...
I'm not trying to be snarky here, the point is that there is no easy solution and optimizing based on what politicians subjectively consider "humane" isn't going to get us anywhere. If we want to actually fix the problem then we need to focus on what's economically feasible rather than low-effort hot takes and sound bites. Free markets, with reasonable limits, can be part of that solution by revealing consumer preferences and allowing for efficient allocation of limited resources.
> Is it humane to leave a patient to die in an ambulance when a single-payer nationalized healthcare system is over capacity?
I think painting the inhumanity of that as a consequence of the structure of the healthcare system is disengenuous at best, especially as the implicit solution you're proposing is to artificially lower utilization rate and access. Deflecting patient deaths into "technically not our fault, they didn't try to get help" by exploiting economics is in no small terms extremely inhumane.
The answer to that is that near universally in the world, our labor pool of medical personnel is too small, and almost all of it has to deal with an arbitrary restriction of labor supply. Stupidly, I have felt this many times in America, so trivially it's a problem no matter the structure of the healthcare system. Optimizing towards maximizing the number of nurses, doctors, pharmacists, the whole spread, in a society is underdiscussed but obviously beneficial (for everybody but those who profit off of the labor scarcity)
> I'm not trying to be snarky here, the point is that there is no easy solution and optimizing based on what politicians subjectively consider "humane" isn't going to get us anywhere.
On the contrary, most politicians seem very adamantly against what I'm proposing. I don't know why you think I'm suggesting that we delegate how we determine what's humane to politicans.
That is the inevitable consequence of your suggestion. In any national healthcare system, it's ultimately the politicians who have to make choices about the incentives that drive the behavior of every other participant.
Is it humane to spend $100K of public funds to extend the life of a terminal cancer patient by 6 weeks? Some would say yes, others no. Those are real choices that have to be made and in the most expensive parts of the healthcare system there is no clear consensus on what is "humane".
is it humane to solve that problem by excluding people based on income? that's what your proposing, as that's how markets solve problems like this: if more people need a product/service than the market can provide prices go up and the poor are excluded. also not trying to be snarky but that's the choice in front of us. part of the problem with free market solutions to healthcare is the feasibility of walking away from a bad deal. in every other space prices are regulated downward by the buyers' ability to either buy something else or do without but there is no doing without emergency care and doing without preventive care is just deferring the cost until it's emergency care at punitive interest.
Stop lying, I haven't proposed anything of the kind. Free market solutions often include giving cash subsidies to certain participants (and you would be aware of this if you had bothered to do even basic research on serious healthcare system reform proposals before commenting). I'm simply pointing out that it's a complex problem with multiple causes and there is no simple solution.
Even cash subsidies can be a kind of chain. Why wouldn't we just subsidize the whole thing for everyone then? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to collect groups of people into "risk pools," then why wouldn't we just put everyone in a global risk pool? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to negotiate rates on behalf of a bunch of people, why wouldn't we have someone like CMS determine those rates? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to make sure everyone has health care, why would we create a system where people are excluded by means-testing?
They're not lying any more than you were when you responded to my suggestion that we should prioritize what's humane with some sort of interpretation that I was saying something about politicians.
Free market solutions, by definition, exclude external interference. Subsidies, by definition, are market interference by an external actor.
I don't think the core issue is the health insurance companies stealing money, it's the deep inefficiencies that come from the position the insurance companies hold.
How many man-hours are spent dealing with insurance paperwork? How much do hospitals and doctors spend each year just dealing with that interaction, rather than treating patients?
> Plus they have enormous problems with fraud, waste, and abuse.
I'd say "enormous" requires some evidentiary proof. Obviously there is fraud and waste. But almost all large scale systems have that. We should certainly try to minimize it wherever we can but I don't think "waste and fraud exist" are a reason to not pursue a path.
>I'd say "enormous" requires some evidentiary proof. Obviously there is fraud and waste. But almost all large scale systems have that. We should certainly try to minimize it wherever we can but I don't think "waste and fraud exist" are a reason to not pursue a path.
Are you living in the same country as the rest of us? There is plentiful evidence of the enormous fraud and waste. It’s not even a point of debate anymore.
For what it's worth I know you've worked on FHIR and probably know a lot of details I don't. Actually I'd be interested in talking to you about FHIR.
That said!
1) In the big picture isn't the US clearly paying more than other countries? I'm sure some of this is eg a janitor in the US costs more than a janitor elsewhere, but still...
2) Isn't the cap for the margin that insurance companies can take 20%? That is, they have to pay out 80% as claims take 20% for overhead
3) Doesn't insurance also induce more work done by everyone else who has to deal with them? So the margin the insurance company itself takes is not the only cost they add. Maybe they make providers do more paperwork, or let patients order tests etc that they would not if they were not spending other people's money, or some other reason. Say insurance pays out 80%, but 30% of documentation or actual work is not done by insurance but only exists because of them, now we're down to 56%.
I say this because literally yesterday, my wife, a pediatrician, after she spent the day seeing patients and got home to go through notes, had to leave a message with an insurance company: she saw they faxed her clinic on Saturday, when the clinic was closed, to cancel care for a patient with an ongoing chronic condition with no changes unless the insurance company got a reply in 48 hours (again, while the clinic was closed!). Now she has to schedule some kind of I don't even know what with them, to confirm the condition is the exact same, except she sees patients all day so it's a pain to schedule...
idk the fact that BCBS is a non profit and has no margin in some technical sense does not seem like a big consolation, something is rotten no?
(edit - the insurance company in the anecdote is not BCBS)
I've worked on a lot of healthcare interoperability standards, including HL7 FHIR. Those can be part of the solution in terms of making the system operate more efficiently and cutting administrative overhead. In many cases payer and provider organizations are still doing things manually that could be automated using existing standards. But they fail to do so due to lack of vision and insufficient technical resources. Literally everything that can be done with a fax can be done faster and better with X12 / NCPCP / DirectTrust standards that have been around for years and are widely supported by commercial EHRs.
It's true that no matter how you look at it, the USA spends a lot more per capita on healthcare relative to outcomes. But you have to be careful what outcome metric you look at. Like we're not doing great on life expectancy, but much of that is due to factors largely outside the healthcare system like violence, vehicle crashes, and lifestyle choices. And in other areas like 5-year cancer survival rates or new drug development we're at or near the top. Part of the problem in the USA is that we seem to be culturally incapable of admitting that rationing is needed, and that it simply isn't feasible to deliver excellent care to everyone, so political reform debates devolve into sound bites about "death panels".
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set a minimum health plan medical loss ratio of 80%, or actually 85% for larger plans. And in practice most come in higher than that due to competitive pressures.
https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...
There's a huge amount of administrative overhead in dealing with health plans for things like claims and prior authorization. Much of that is imposed not so much by insurers themselves but by employers who want to hold down costs. Like a commercial insurer would be happy to sell a plan that would pay every claim immediately at 100% with no questions asked. It would be less work for them. But no one would buy it because costs would explode. Medicare and Medicaid plans also have prior authorization and peer review processes. Something like a quarter of all healthcare services are "low value care" which doesn't align with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and may even harm the patient, so when health plans apply review processes the right way then ideally it's better for patients and holds down costs for everyone.
To be clear, I'm not here to defend commercial health insurance companies. They are part of the problem and some reforms in that area are sorely needed. But let's have an honest debate about it and stop pretending that eliminating them would solve the deeper systemic problems.
Admin inefficiencies between orgs definitely exist and maybe better interoperability and standards is the solution, but wouldn't there also be less of a problem in the first place if there were fewer different orgs all complicating workflows?
Also not saying you're wrong about many healthcare services being unnecessary or even harmful, and someone has to be the one to say no to patients asking for low value care which is definitely a real hard position to be in and a real problem. At the same time insurance companies aren't making a great case for themselves as the solution imo bring on the government death panels.
Yes, provider organizations waste a lot of resources dealing with differences between health plans. Reducing the number of different payers would certainly reduce that overhead, at least in the short term. Mandating increased health plan transparency and use of open interoperability standards can also help by allowing providers to deal with those health plans in a more consistent way and automating much of the current manual work.
In general though I'm just skeptical that a single payer solution is the best possible long-term approach. US federal and state governments are already under tremendous fiscal pressure. So if we forcibly route all healthcare payments through governments then there's going to be constant pressure to hold down costs through blunt measures. And decisions will inevitably become even more politicized with special favors or punishments given out based on party loyalty. Do we really want to put someone like Xavier Becerra or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of centrally planning something like a fifth of the US economy?
The current US healthcare system is unnecessarily wasteful and cruel. But on the positive side we produce far more innovation per capita than any other country. Let's find a way to incrementally fix the worst problems without killing the golden goose.
insurance issues are provider and insurer going back and forth detrmining if doctors assessment of necessity is agreed upon.
i am not familiar with universal system. In that system if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary then thats the end of it and its gets done?
All healthcare systems have some form of rationing. Even if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary it can only get done if the system actually has capacity.
In most countries where there is universal coverage with a single payer, certain expensive treatments have long waiting lists or are simply unavailable at any price. Thus we see wealthy Canadians coming to the USA as medical tourists and paying cash for procedures like MRI scans or joint replacements in order to avoid the queue back home. There are always trade-offs, it's just a matter of what we want to prioritize.
yea queue is fine . i was wondering about gp's claim that universal would be more efficient because there is no more back and forth about approving.
i wasnt sure if it simply takes a different form or gets eliminated completly.
In my experience, insurance issues are usually insurer and patient going back and forth and then patient getting 6 different answers from 6 different representatives, then reviewing the 3000 page plan document, finding the single line that properly describes what should have happened, calling the insurance company, explaining to the rep how your plan works, and demanding that it be reprocessed. Like my wife has to do this frequently and spends several hours per month dealing with this but she has saved us probably tens of thousands of dollars in mis-processed claims that the insurance companies can't even properly handle. I usually am the person carefully reading plan docs, finding the proper billing codes, and explaining things like that to the insurance company. Sometimes we have to get the doctor's billing people to code things, like once they coded something that was an outpatient appointment as a minor surgery which could have cost us a lot of money.
So in my book since we get to speculate about what the system should look like, it should absolutely result in people getting care without all of this run-around. It's about eliminating as much misery as possible from the system and letting people just get treated and providers just get paid. We can talk about efficiency once the misery is gone.
Yes, part of the overall solution needs to be health plan transparency on clinical guidelines and coverage rules. Currently much of that is concealed, or applied unevenly.
But we're not going to eliminate misery from the healthcare system. Demand is effectively infinite, mainly from patients with complex conditions, and supply is finite. Developed countries with more socialized healthcare systems typically do a pretty good job of delivering basic primary care but things often fall apart when more complex or specialized care is needed. Those systems also ration and deny care but it tends to be through forcing patients to wait in long queues, or simply not offering expensive treatments at all. Like under the UK NHS, some prescription cancer drugs just aren't available. So that's a different form of misery.
you think there is scope for a non profit here that can advocate on behalf of patients and read the contracts. perhaps with ais help.
You're citing some of the results of a runaway healthcare industrial complex, such as drug prices, as reasons why the thing that would keep such a complex from emerging won't work.
Employers might be contributing more to healthcare costs, but that's because they have to in order to keep coverage for their employees at all as premiums increase, and individual out-of-pocket costs are still rising as a result of coverage denial and high deductibles.
While healthcare spending isn’t included in some economic measures like wages (which has contributed to the distorted productivity-pay gap discourse), labor share as discussed in this article is actually calculated using total compensation, the “total of payments to labor to produce output, including wages, benefits, and other monetary or nonmonetary payments,” which includes employer contributions to medical care not just wages and salaries.[0] They do discuss payroll share later on though, which doesn’t include non-wage compensation.
[0] https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/opt/calculation.htm
I've built and audited medical billing systems and billing practices. It isn't an economics issue in a traditional sense. Infact it would drastically reduce complexity of these systems and payments over time, even allowing private insurers to exist but have to compete with a base general coverage. (many smarter people than me at princeton did economics showing this worked out as a net less expensive than what we are doing now) The biggest reason why its not the simplistic solution, is politics of all the middle men (me) making exponential returns from solutions to these systemic issues.
Too much money in the system being flawed, look at pricing for any HIPAA safe products and thats just technology. Money is so hard to get for healthcare providers it is its own industry of revenue cycle management and thrid party billers. Most of these physician lead practices charge more is because planning your account around reemburcement cycles from insurance companies are 30-120 days if your lucky is an advanced accounting problem. (Thats excluding complexities of audits, LOPs, network rates etc.) Medicare/medicaid the fraud side has lots of tiny wins through leaning on tax information more, taking the model from the successful basic income studies and trials worked out.
I'm not sure what you mean by pricing for "HIPAA safe products"? It's not particularly expensive to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule, and honestly that level of privacy and security is the minimum we ought to expect in any industry that deals with sensitive consumer data.
There aren't as many physician-led practices anymore. Most of them have been rolled up into larger health systems in order to achieve economies of scale and increase negotiating power with commercial health plans. Which is one of the factors driving up overall healthcare system costs.
Do other countries' state healthcare system costs count towards their labor share of income? If not, it seems sensible not to account for them that way in the US, or you're creating a much more serious apples and oranges problem for international statistics (which are often cited/compared for these figures)...
The data here would already include healthcare contributions.
> If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending.
It may not be simple but it's clear the United States is doing something catastrophically wrong. All the other healthcare systems on the planet in developed countries have problems, sure. But we spend magnitudes more money to receive middling-to-shit healthcare. Medical debt and bankruptcy is a unique American problem that also happens to be the most reliable way for otherwise productive and prosperous members of our society to end up fucking homeless. Because they got SICK. I rarely use the word "evil" but that really fits IMO.
Like you cannot tell me with a straight face that the insurance industry couldn't be blown the fuck off the map tomorrow and literally everyone who doesn't own an insurance company isn't instantly better off.
If the insurance companies disappeared tomorrow, presumably all medical care is paid for at point of use by patients? That would mean stochastically facing catastrophic bills from providers. I am sympathetic to the idea that healthcare providers and systems here should be making no more than in, say, Europe, but an orthopaedic surgeon being paid the $300k USD-equivalent in Germany instead of his $750k USD income today at median would be very unhappy.
> would be very unhappy.
Significantly increasing the supply of doctors would solve that, though.
There are certainly some things that we could do to increase the supply of physicians by reducing the cost of education, expanding access to combined BS/MD programs, and increasing the number of residency slots. But those measures will have marginal effects, and take years to show up in supply numbers. There just aren't a lot more people who are mentally and physically capable of doing this work.
Part of the problem is that we force physicians to waste too much time on administrative work. Some of this could be delegated to cheaper employees or not done at all, thus effectively increasing supply. Administrative overhead is also one of the factors driving physicians to quit and pivot to other careers or retire early, which further constrains supply.
This part is controversial but we'll also have to shift a lot of primary care to Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. Care quality might be lower in some cases but for routine conditions it's probably better to see a PA/NP today instead of waiting weeks for a physician.
> but an orthopaedic surgeon being paid the $300k USD-equivalent in Germany instead of his $750k USD income today at median would be very unhappy.
I'm sure he'll manage.
Sure, but the rare type of person capable of becoming an orthopedic surgeon has other career options. There are some who are drawn to it as a calling because they love caring for patients and would do it regardless of wages. But most respond to economic incentives, so at the margins some will choose to go into technology or finance or something and make more money there.
When we fix the price of something below the market clearing price then there will always be a shortage. This is inevitable. We might decide that having a shortage of orthopedic surgeons is acceptable but let's not pretend that there are no trade-offs.
Germany has a stagnant economy so it's easy for their healthcare system to pay doctors lower wages because they have few other options. Baumol's cost disease is a real factor in healthcare, and it impacts the USA more than most other countries precisely because our overall economic growth has been so robust.
If you as a person are turned off of a career because you can only make a mere, paltry peasant wage of $300k per year, then I think that's really a you problem there.
And as to your comments about shortages, we already have shortages.
Feel free to moralize all you like about the maximum wages other people should earn if that makes you feel better but that won't solve any of the actual problems. In the real world, most people respond to economic incentives. Shortages can always get worse. (I am not a physician.)
> In the real world, most people respond to economic incentives.
Then why is there a shortage? Are you telling me the $750,000 yearly compensation still isn't enough?
Are you telling me that $750K yearly compensation still isn't enough for an NBA player? Maybe they should be nice and agree to play for less because they love the game and want to entertain people.
If we're talking about orthopedic surgeons specifically, a good one is essentially an elite athlete. A single tiny error can leave a patient dead or crippled. It takes a rare combination of intelligence, ability to focus for hours, physical strength, and fine motor control. So only a minuscule fraction of people even have the necessary potential. And the training pipeline is necessarily long because they need a lot of reps to build up the mental and physical skills, and to weed out those who aren't suited. Sure, you can find some people who are willing to do the work for lower wages but will they be the right people?
Beyond the wage issue, supply for all physicians is artificially constrained by training system capacity limits, as I already explained above. There are things that could be done to make training a bit cheaper and maybe two years shorter. But the easiest win would be to make more efficient use of the existing supply by optimizing workflows, and automating or eliminating administrative tasks.
What the US is doing is nonsensical. Modern Healthcare is an industrial system designed to handle large populations in bulk. But it only works if everyone can get timely access. This is true for things like mass screenings and medication.
The insane thing is denying it to half of the population doesn't really mean the other half gets to save that much money in real terms.
I strongly agree that socializing the healthcare industry will not help in any way. To the extent that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, it's precisely because of government intervention in the U.S. Healthcare industry has massively increased over the last 50 years, especially in the form of tax incentives for employers to compensate employees by way of health insurance. Anyway, with respect to the labor share of income, that is not correct. Employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums are included in the labor share.
> To the extent that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, it's precisely because of government intervention in the U.S. Healthcare industry has massively increased over the last 50 years, especially in the form of tax incentives for employers to compensate employees by way of health insurance.
It fails to follow logically that one specific way the government got involved that drove costs up means that any possible intervention is worse than completely being hands-off. How do you explain pretty much every other developed country in the world having more government involvement but lower costs than the US?
The problem is, quite simply, insurance.
When something is paid for from a big nebulous ball of money rather than straight out of people's pockets, the downward pressure on prices just isn't there in the same way. The conversations between practitioners and insurers are about whether something is necessary, not about whether or not the practitioner is charging too much for it.
Here in the UK we see it, too - not so much in human healthcare since we have the NHS - but very definitely in animal healthcare; vets' bills have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, in a mutually-reinforcing feedback loop with the rise in pet health insurance.
> Here in the UK we see it, too - not so much in human healthcare since we have the NHS - but very definitely in animal healthcare; vets' bills have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, in a mutually-reinforcing feedback loop with the rise in pet health insurance.
Kind of amazing how perfectly this illustrates that in the exact same economy, the system with single payer mostly works to keep prices sane, and the private insurance model goes off the rails
Health care costs across the developed world have skyrocketed for exactly the same structural reasons. Yes, implementations have been different in their details, but the larger structure is the same no matter where you look in the developed world. Government intervention has increased. That means more top-down management and less bottom-up self-organization based on private property and individual incentives.
This is not some spurious speculation. That market-based systems drive down costs enormously is replicated across dozens upon dozens of industries. It's one of the most replicable results in economics to the extent that economics can be replicable. As for why the costs in other countries are not quite as high as the U.S., it's because health care costs also increase as per capita GDP increases and the U.S. has higher per capita GDP. Moreover, because the U.S. has some aspects of its health care system still living more in the private sector, there is less top-down rationing. Other countries see very clear examples of rationing, so people spend less on end-of-life care.
> This is not some spurious speculation. That market-based systems drive down costs enormously is replicated across dozens upon dozens of industries. It's one of the most replicable results in economics to the extent that economics can be replicable. As for why the costs in other countries are not quite as high as the U.S., it's because health care costs also increase as per capita GDP increases and the U.S. has higher per capita GDP. Moreover, because the U.S. has some aspects of its health care system still living more in the private sector, there is less top-down rationing. Other countries see very clear examples of rationing, so people spend less on end-of-life care.
That actually sounds a lot like speculation. You're claiming that the most largest structural difference in the healthcare system in the US compared to other countries is unrelated to the difference in costs, and that other factors explain it, based on inferences from things not related to healthcare. I don't understand how you can have any degree of confidence that single payer versus private insurance has no effect at all based on what you're saying.
What I'm saying is not spurious speculation is the idea that the healthcare industry across the developed world has gotten more expensive because it has become less market-based and more top-down controlled. That's an extrapolation from the observed patterns across dozens upon dozens of industries.
As for the difference between the U.S. healthcare system and healthcare systems in other developed countries, if they had the same output of health care services, I would agree, but the US has far more diagnostic equipment per capita and more advanced treatments. It has the best neonatal facilities in the world. These are extremely costly and some of this expenditure doesn't actually produce that big of a difference in outcomes because it's really just dealing with end of life care, or a relatively small number of patients (e.g. premature infants). But when people are free to spend their money as they wish, this is what they prioritize. I'm also not ruling out that the U.S. healthcare system has less efficient government intervention than the healthcare systems of other developed countries. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea that, more broadly speaking, the structural change towards more government intervention has raised costs across developed world healthcare systems.
The more important question in my opinion is why health care spending across the entire developed world has skyrocketed over the last 40 years. It can be fairly inferred that the cost increase is directly related to increased administration and a lack of the kind of cost-cutting innovation seen in every industry that is substantially more market-based / consumer-driven, i.e. less top-down regimented, than healthcare.
Even cosmetic and laser eye surgery has seen costs come down over the last 40 years. That's what we should be seeing in the rest of the healthcare industry. And the reason we're not is because they operate under very different economic forces than cosmetic and laser eye surgeries, on account of government encouraging people to be covered by either public insurance or private insurance.
This is true in the sense that if I sell water in the desert at $100 a bottle, at 900% profit margin, doesn't mean that if the government steps in and pays half of it, that the resulting system is somehow good, just because less people are dying of thirst.
> I strongly agree that socializing the healthcare industry will not help in any way.
It would eliminate the tens of billions that are wasted on insurance company profits.
Yeah, I guess the rest of the developed world doesn’t really ‘get it’ - fools!
Could America be wrong? No, no, it's the other countries!
they get subsidized by usa pharma industry. Their costs will rise if pharma prices are negotiated by govt here too.
That sounds good to me. Why should millions of Americans die every year because they can't afford their medications just so that other countries can get their meds at extremely low prices? Let's also have the US government negotiate our prices and let things even out across the board.
Removing a useless middleman party that needs a profit margin, and removing the perverse incentives of them having to prove their value thus having inflated prices with fake discounts, and centralising all healthcare purchasing power in a single entity, is absolutely going to solve a lot of challenges US healthcare faces
> And no, there's no simple solution to this problem. The notion that something like "Medicare for All" would solve the problem is a total fantasy, disconnected from actual US healthcare economics. Any real solution will have to work on multiple angles including preventive care, PBMs, provider wages, rationing, drug prices, fraud, malpractice insurance, interoperability technology, etc.
I have been saying this for years. I'm so tired of social media memes turning into sage wisdom for an entire generation who can barely spell healthcare, let alone have any vague understanding of it.
I'm and-then'ing, not disagreeing, but the big healthcare cost fix, IMO, still centers around education cost reform, and fixing the supply of mid-levels+ across the country.
Is there a reference you can cite with corrected numbers? Honestly this sounds like excuse-making, especially when used as a jumping point into a decidedly partisan take (complete with scare quotes!) on the essentially unrelated subject of public health care financing.
The idea seems to have merit, but it's unconvincing to people outside your bubble and I'm dubious.
You misinterpreted by comment. It was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology. None of the major US political parties have workable reform proposals that could actually be implemented and achieve net positive results.
This is a complex topic with no tl;dr possible. If you want to be able to participate in discussions on a rational, quantitative basis then a good starting point is "The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care--and How to Fix It" by Marty Makary, MD. It goes into the numbers far better than I can cover in a short HN comment.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/price-we-pay-9781635574128/
> [my comment] was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology
That's what all partisans think. Nonetheless you put needless scare quotes around Medicare for All, dismissed it as a "total fantasy", and, I guess, helpfully suggested I read a book by (literally!) the head of the Trump administration's FDA as a reference for "What Broke American Health Care".
If that was all done in good faith, then you're in an echo chamber and need to escape.
Is there anything in that book that is factually incorrect, or are you going to stick with a lazy, low-effort dismissal? If you had actually read it you would know that it's refreshingly free of partisan ideology.
The quotes around "Medicare For All" were intended not to scare anyone but to identify a general set of policy proposals that have been floating around lately.
Again, we're not having an argument about health care, and I'm not trying to dismiss the book you cited that pertains to the argument we're not having. I'm saying that book is clearly partisan, as is your argument.
And I'm using that observation (which you keep reinforcing!) to justify my suspicion around the economic point you tried to make upthread (that, I guess, "hidden" health care "income" would increase labor's share if measured).
It's 100% clear to me that the labor/income point is spin, and to be blunt I don't believe it for an instant.