If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
Relying on taxes is how we got up there in the first place.
If the rich start paying their fair share, maybe we wont have to reply on the vainity of a couple of billionaires to get anything done.
Perhaps.
But it seems to me self-preservation in the face of oncoming heat death is more prominent than any prevailing self-preservation in the face of a popular uprising at the moment.
So up until we force the rich to pay more taxes, I'm happy to let them fund these initiatives directly.
So they'll figure out how to save themselves and a few others?
Self preservation doesn't really factor into it though. They'll all be dead of old age by the time the serious effects kick in (~2050s).
You're ignoring the ultimate truth of human existence - we're all dead in the long run.
You're not relying on self preservation, you're relying on altruism for future generations, an altruism that does not exist.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
The self preservation instincts of the rich?
You mean those things that tanked the economy twice?
Double hard pass.
I don't see our governments looking sufficiently into the future, so it's the only hope I have left.
You should just give into pure misanthropy. Believing in the altruism of the rich is silly when you look at the history of every civilization with a rich upper class.
More over, there is no reason to think that the rich have any more of a long term view than the government, since the government is ultimately run by and for rich people.
Also, a lot of times, it's the rich that cause the dysfunction of the government, as the government becomes the sole entity with the power to threaten the security of the rich.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
Relying on taxes is how we got up there in the first place.
If the rich start paying their fair share, maybe we wont have to reply on the vainity of a couple of billionaires to get anything done.
Perhaps.
But it seems to me self-preservation in the face of oncoming heat death is more prominent than any prevailing self-preservation in the face of a popular uprising at the moment.
So up until we force the rich to pay more taxes, I'm happy to let them fund these initiatives directly.
There isn't realistically any global warming model that renders the earth uninhabitable and as such people who count their fortunes in the billions are immune to its effects. They will always have enough to eat and drink. They'll never be swamped by environmental refugees. They'll get to live in all the greenest places.
Collective dangers don't apply to people who aren't part of the collective.
Public: Hey there's a lot of research coming out that says your practices are kind toxic, maybe we should regulate you.
Business: Actually i just invented this theory where all my practices are super perfect and the best course of action is for us to do exactly nothing.
Public: Well you are very rich so obviously you know better than me.
The whole thing is being made overly complicated anyway. Bezos, and people like him, sit atop stolen fortunes. What they choose to do with them has no relevance
Bezos earned it by setting up a big company that sells things. He's not a vulture capitalist or anything.
I don't get where all this sudden Marxism is coming from on the internet, it seems all over.
The whole thing is being made overly complicated anyway. Bezos, and people like him, sit atop stolen fortunes. What they choose to do with them has no relevance
Bezos earned it by setting up a big company that sells things. He's not a vulture capitalist or anything.
I don't get where all this sudden Marxism is coming from on the internet, it seems all over.
I'd be happy to get into labor and wealth if a mod says it's on topic.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
Isn't this the singularity theory? Computers will eventually fix all our problems so it doesnt matter how destructive the path required is, only that it is also the fastest.
Not really; Singularity Theory is just that at some point, exponential advancement of technology will reach a point at which the leaps between generations will become more and more vast, and come at shorter and shorter intervals, that a human mind can no longer feasibly keep up with them.
Sort of like a cartoon snowball rolling down a mountain, becoming bigger and bigger and inconcievably bigger in a frighteningly short timespan and whoops there goes the Ski Villa, just broken timbers and snow.
The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?
Recent research by Minneapolis Fed economists suggests the latter. In “Inferring Inequality with Home Production” (WP 746, also NBER 24166), Job Boerma and Loukas Karabarbounis find that home production—a factor often ignored by economists—“amplifies … differences among households, meaning that inequality is larger than we thought.” Their mathematical model with both market production (that is, jobs) and household production generates greater inequality than a model that incorporates only market production.
“Our result is surprising,” the economists write. “One could expect that home production tends to compress welfare differences that originate in the market.” But the assumption underlying this expectation, that households without large paychecks ramp up home production to compensate, is unfounded.
In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm not surprised. It's not like poor people are just sitting around when they aren't at work. They are at one of their 2 or three other jobs, or taking care of kids, or whatever.
The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?
Recent research by Minneapolis Fed economists suggests the latter. In “Inferring Inequality with Home Production” (WP 746, also NBER 24166), Job Boerma and Loukas Karabarbounis find that home production—a factor often ignored by economists—“amplifies … differences among households, meaning that inequality is larger than we thought.” Their mathematical model with both market production (that is, jobs) and household production generates greater inequality than a model that incorporates only market production.
“Our result is surprising,” the economists write. “One could expect that home production tends to compress welfare differences that originate in the market.” But the assumption underlying this expectation, that households without large paychecks ramp up home production to compensate, is unfounded.
In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
That theory has always seemed like something people who aren't poor buy in to and the rest laugh about, but empirical backing is always nice.
I feel like there's enough meat for a discussion about the current US economy, the signs of a potential recession, how such a recession could affect the world economy, and what the political ramifications such a downturn might cause.
Stick to the topic of this thread, please, or infractions bonds are going to start skyrocketing.
I feel like there's enough meat for a discussion about the current US economy, the signs of a potential recession, how such a recession could affect the world economy, and what the political ramifications such a downturn might cause.
Stick to the topic of this thread, please, or infractions bonds are going to start skyrocketing.
The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?
Recent research by Minneapolis Fed economists suggests the latter. In “Inferring Inequality with Home Production” (WP 746, also NBER 24166), Job Boerma and Loukas Karabarbounis find that home production—a factor often ignored by economists—“amplifies … differences among households, meaning that inequality is larger than we thought.” Their mathematical model with both market production (that is, jobs) and household production generates greater inequality than a model that incorporates only market production.
“Our result is surprising,” the economists write. “One could expect that home production tends to compress welfare differences that originate in the market.” But the assumption underlying this expectation, that households without large paychecks ramp up home production to compensate, is unfounded.
In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
This seems like one of those 'science reveals: water is wet!' studies. How are these results surprising at all, to anyone whose thought process went beyond some half baked idea of 'well poor people must just be lazy!'
The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?
Recent research by Minneapolis Fed economists suggests the latter. In “Inferring Inequality with Home Production” (WP 746, also NBER 24166), Job Boerma and Loukas Karabarbounis find that home production—a factor often ignored by economists—“amplifies … differences among households, meaning that inequality is larger than we thought.” Their mathematical model with both market production (that is, jobs) and household production generates greater inequality than a model that incorporates only market production.
“Our result is surprising,” the economists write. “One could expect that home production tends to compress welfare differences that originate in the market.” But the assumption underlying this expectation, that households without large paychecks ramp up home production to compensate, is unfounded.
In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
Besides the hilarity of how this isn’t obvious to some people...
...the idea that poor folks really aren’t that poor because they have to work more hours and do harder physical work at home to keep from starving or being choked out by 6-foot tall weeds is FUCKING INFURIATING.
+19
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Within the last few years the Nobel Prize in economics went to someone basically saying "What if people weren't perfectly informed and rational about economic decisions they are making?" and it blew my mind that economics had ever considered human market decisions as rational in the first place.
The decision to apply the steel and aluminium tarriffs against our allies was postponed another 30 days. Because who doesn't like remaking your long term investment decisions every four weeks due to the whims of a goose.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm not surprised. It's not like poor people are just sitting around when they aren't at work. They are at one of their 2 or three other jobs, or taking care of kids, or whatever.
yeah, like:
The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well.
No shit? Do people think that low-paying jobs just mean you only work a couple hours a week? Or that rich people just work more hours than there even are in a week or something?
The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?
Recent research by Minneapolis Fed economists suggests the latter. In “Inferring Inequality with Home Production” (WP 746, also NBER 24166), Job Boerma and Loukas Karabarbounis find that home production—a factor often ignored by economists—“amplifies … differences among households, meaning that inequality is larger than we thought.” Their mathematical model with both market production (that is, jobs) and household production generates greater inequality than a model that incorporates only market production.
“Our result is surprising,” the economists write. “One could expect that home production tends to compress welfare differences that originate in the market.” But the assumption underlying this expectation, that households without large paychecks ramp up home production to compensate, is unfounded.
In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
This seems like one of those 'science reveals: water is wet!' studies. How are these results surprising at all, to anyone whose thought process went beyond some half baked idea of 'well poor people must just be lazy!'
Mweh. Doesn't seem that long ago that the news media was "surprised" that most entrepreneurs were already rich! Because it turns out that only idle rich people can really afford to take years off work and still have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars to pump into long-shot entrepreneurial ideas.
But the (near-)myth of the poor person who stumbles across a brilliant idea and turns it into a massive fortune is a core element of capitalist mythology. It's the pitch, as it were, and as it turns out, the real product is nothing like the pitch.
The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?
Recent research by Minneapolis Fed economists suggests the latter. In “Inferring Inequality with Home Production” (WP 746, also NBER 24166), Job Boerma and Loukas Karabarbounis find that home production—a factor often ignored by economists—“amplifies … differences among households, meaning that inequality is larger than we thought.” Their mathematical model with both market production (that is, jobs) and household production generates greater inequality than a model that incorporates only market production.
“Our result is surprising,” the economists write. “One could expect that home production tends to compress welfare differences that originate in the market.” But the assumption underlying this expectation, that households without large paychecks ramp up home production to compensate, is unfounded.
In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
Besides the hilarity of how this isn’t obvious to some people...
...the idea that poor folks really aren’t that poor because they have to work more hours and do harder physical work at home to keep from starving or being choked out by 6-foot tall weeds is FUCKING INFURIATING.
Also consider that a middle class family with a computer, car, garage, tools, time saving appliances, and a quarter acre suburban lot has a lot of capital to be productive with, compared to a poor family in a 1-2 bed 1-2 bathroom apartment living a bare bones lifestyle.
If they want to the middle class family can spend more time on earning side income, with much more productive enterprises, since they don't have to spend their time pinching every penny to make end's meet.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Within the last few years the Nobel Prize in economics went to someone basically saying "What if people weren't perfectly informed and rational about economic decisions they are making?" and it blew my mind that economics had ever considered human market decisions as rational in the first place.
Its not as simple as it sounds on the outside, actually. Most economists (now and before) are perfectly aware that information is, in practice, rarely if ever perfect and that people are swayed by emotions other than calculating rationality. Its that finding ways to incorporate those things into models is fiendishly difficult, which is where work has been progressing lately.
Within the last few years the Nobel Prize in economics went to someone basically saying "What if people weren't perfectly informed and rational about economic decisions they are making?" and it blew my mind that economics had ever considered human market decisions as rational in the first place.
Keep in mind that the thing the prize was written for was probably done in the 70s or 80s. There is a huge backlog in Econ Nobels because it takes time to determine which models bear fruit and are accepted and such are not.
Note also the above, about how the difficulty is generally in modeling.
As an Example: Paul Krugman got his Nobel in 2008 for work he did in 1978.
The whole thing is being made overly complicated anyway. Bezos, and people like him, sit atop stolen fortunes. What they choose to do with them has no relevance
Bezos earned it by setting up a big company that sells things. He's not a vulture capitalist or anything.
I don't get where all this sudden Marxism is coming from on the internet, it seems all over.
It’s not new and it’s very likely stuff like this (see below quote) coming to a head both in an intellectual and visceral manner. When people do not see results from the status quo they will look to other answers.
For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that wage growth had slowed because of rising competition from low-paid workers in foreign countries (globalization), as well as the replacement of workers with machinery, including robots (automation). But in recent years, economists have discovered another source: the growth of the labor market power of employers — namely, their power to dictate, and hence suppress, wages.
It turns out, however, that labor markets are often uncompetitive: Employers have the power to hold down wages by a host of methods and for numerous reasons. And new academic studies suggest the markets have been growing ever more uncompetitive over time.
How much of the decline in labor’s share, or the fall in employment, is attributable to the rise of monopsony or labor market power?
Answering this question precisely will take years of empirical research. But by combining standard economic models with recent evidence about the prevalence of monopsony power and other crucial economic parameters, we can get a back-of-the-envelope sense of the drag of the monopsony tax. (In a recent working paper, you can find a fuller account of our analysis and assumptions.) The answer, as you will see, is simple: huge.
In our working paper, we take a first cut at estimating the effects of monopsony on both employment rates and wages. Employment, we calculate, is 5 to 18 percent less than it would be in a competitive market. (Here is Marx’s reserve army of the unemployed.) This effect can explain all of the decline in employment rates among prime-age men observed by labor economists.
The results for wage rates are even more disturbing. Given the way our economy works historically, labor’s share of economic output should be about 74 percent if labor markets were perfectly competitive. Because of employers’ power to drive down wages, labor’s share of economic output falls to somewhere between 51 and 64 percent. This transfer significantly increases income inequality.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
Relying on taxes is how we got up there in the first place.
If the rich start paying their fair share, maybe we wont have to reply on the vainity of a couple of billionaires to get anything done.
The government has the money, it can magic the money from the ether if it wanted to. It doesn't want to, a few billion a year is chump change
I still can't believe Eric Posner is writing about antitrust cases to fight inequality
Also it makes me happy that these papers are being put out about antitrust cases and labor power. It builds off the enormous literature that the capital-labor ratio (i.e. automation) isn't actually as important for economic growth as people think. I think there's a case to be made that if the capital-labor ratio isn't important for growth, then it's probably not as important for inequality (my idea here being that if the economy is growing for years on end but inequality is also increasing, then the lion's share is going to the richest, but growth isn't the problem).
Within the last few years the Nobel Prize in economics went to someone basically saying "What if people weren't perfectly informed and rational about economic decisions they are making?" and it blew my mind that economics had ever considered human market decisions as rational in the first place.
Its not as simple as it sounds on the outside, actually. Most economists (now and before) are perfectly aware that information is, in practice, rarely if ever perfect and that people are swayed by emotions other than calculating rationality. Its that finding ways to incorporate those things into models is fiendishly difficult, which is where work has been progressing lately.
Yeah, from what I determined the point of this is less "this should be obvious" and more "here we have a model that shows this behaviour". It's good to get backing for these suppositions.
The whole thing is being made overly complicated anyway. Bezos, and people like him, sit atop stolen fortunes. What they choose to do with them has no relevance
Bezos earned it by setting up a big company that sells things. He's not a vulture capitalist or anything.
I don't get where all this sudden Marxism is coming from on the internet, it seems all over.
For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that wage growth had slowed because of rising competition from low-paid workers in foreign countries (globalization), as well as the replacement of workers with machinery, including robots (automation). But in recent years, economists have discovered another source: the growth of the labor market power of employers — namely, their power to dictate, and hence suppress, wages.
It turns out, however, that labor markets are often uncompetitive: Employers have the power to hold down wages by a host of methods and for numerous reasons. And new academic studies suggest the markets have been growing ever more uncompetitive over time.
How much of the decline in labor’s share, or the fall in employment, is attributable to the rise of monopsony or labor market power?
Answering this question precisely will take years of empirical research. But by combining standard economic models with recent evidence about the prevalence of monopsony power and other crucial economic parameters, we can get a back-of-the-envelope sense of the drag of the monopsony tax. (In a recent working paper, you can find a fuller account of our analysis and assumptions.) The answer, as you will see, is simple: huge.
In our working paper, we take a first cut at estimating the effects of monopsony on both employment rates and wages. Employment, we calculate, is 5 to 18 percent less than it would be in a competitive market. (Here is Marx’s reserve army of the unemployed.) This effect can explain all of the decline in employment rates among prime-age men observed by labor economists.
The results for wage rates are even more disturbing. Given the way our economy works historically, labor’s share of economic output should be about 74 percent if labor markets were perfectly competitive. Because of employers’ power to drive down wages, labor’s share of economic output falls to somewhere between 51 and 64 percent. This transfer significantly increases income inequality.
I still can't believe Eric Posner is writing about antitrust cases to fight inequality
Also it makes me happy that these papers are being put out about antitrust cases and labor power. It builds off the enormous literature that the capital-labor ratio (i.e. automation) isn't actually as important for economic growth as people think. I think there's a case to be made that if the capital-labor ratio isn't important for growth, then it's probably not as important for inequality (my idea here being that if the economy is growing for years on end but inequality is also increasing, then the lion's share is going to the richest, but growth isn't the problem).
Eh. I can. His dad (a fairly influential now retired judge) was writing liberal things about copyright law in 2003. Eric probably followed a similar path once his dad started waking up
The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?
Recent research by Minneapolis Fed economists suggests the latter. In “Inferring Inequality with Home Production” (WP 746, also NBER 24166), Job Boerma and Loukas Karabarbounis find that home production—a factor often ignored by economists—“amplifies … differences among households, meaning that inequality is larger than we thought.” Their mathematical model with both market production (that is, jobs) and household production generates greater inequality than a model that incorporates only market production.
“Our result is surprising,” the economists write. “One could expect that home production tends to compress welfare differences that originate in the market.” But the assumption underlying this expectation, that households without large paychecks ramp up home production to compensate, is unfounded.
In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
Besides the hilarity of how this isn’t obvious to some people...
...the idea that poor folks really aren’t that poor because they have to work more hours and do harder physical work at home to keep from starving or being choked out by 6-foot tall weeds is FUCKING INFURIATING.
Also consider that a middle class family with a computer, car, garage, tools, time saving appliances, and a quarter acre suburban lot has a lot of capital to be productive with, compared to a poor family in a 1-2 bed 1-2 bathroom apartment living a bare bones lifestyle.
If they want to the middle class family can spend more time on earning side income, with much more productive enterprises, since they don't have to spend their time pinching every penny to make end's meet.
Just to chime in, for things as simple as car maintenance.
It is so much less expensive to use a cloth/rags and a bucket of soapy water, and your own vacuum to wash and clean your car. Something you generally need an outdoor space like a driveway for.
When living in small apartments, you pretty much have to either spend money on the drive thru washes or the wand washes, or even a detailing place, which is magnitudes more expensive because you dont have the space to doit at home.
Eh. I can. His dad (a fairly influential now retired judge) was writing liberal things about copyright law in 2003. Eric probably followed a similar path once his dad started waking up
Judge Posner is an odd duck. He really doesn't fit into any political box. He leans libertarian, but with an economist flair. He's staunchly conservative in some areas, but incredibly liberal in others (he's all for legalization of drugs, even hard ones like heroin). I never got any cases of my own in front of the 7th, but I got to sit in on a number of oral arguments when I was in law school. He's one of the sharpest minds I've ever seen in person.
I do find it a bit funny that this "liberal" economist theory is coming out of UofC law school, which is the complete opposite of the general mode of thought from the UofC school of economics, which basically pushed our modern "monopolies don't matter any more" school of thought that has pervaded since the late 70s (much of which was pushed by Judge Posner back in the 80s).
Work requirements for low-income Americans are back on the table in Congress and within the Trump administration. This is the case despite evidence-based research that shows work requirements are ill-conceived or counterproductive to helping low-income Americans supplement their monthly purchases of food, pay rent and utilities, and cover needed visits to the doctor.
Simply put, the evidence does not back up the arguments for work requirements for these programs and actually may be counterproductive. First and foremost is the false notion that the beneficiaries of these programs are able to work but choose not to. Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that of the 40 percent of nonelderly poor Americans with access to Medicaid who are not working, the reasons are because they are disabled (14 percent), providing childcare or eldercare (12 percent), attending school (6 percent), and for other reasons such as not being able to find work or being retired (7 percent). Yet the rhetoric about these recipients’ disinclination to work remains pervasive among conservatives in Congress and in the Trump administration.
Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that imposing work requirements simply doesn’t work. One reason is because increased red tape may lead to eligible recipients losing their benefits even though they are eligible for them. People with volatile work hours or who hold multiple jobs may have a hard time collecting and submitting sufficient documentation to demonstrate they are working regularly. As CBPP points out, completing work-requirement red tape is even harder for self-employed workers, which should be cause for concern as gig-based employment becomes more prevalent.
Going deeper behind these arguments, the idea that work requirements are useful standards for providing assistance to low-income Americans already struggling to make ends meet is rooted in an overly simplistic and faulty understanding of how the U.S. labor market functions, which in turn is reinforced by negative and racialized stereotypes of the beneficiaries of these programs.
In short, imposing work requirements on low-income Americans does not reflect the structurally imperfect labor market in which workers interact with their current or potential employers and with broader social problems that inhibit finding work with sustainable wages.
Then there’s the question of harming these workers’ own future economic prospects by imposing work requirements. Research by Adriana Kugler and Ammar Farooq at Georgetown University finds that increasing the generosity of Medicaid eligibility standards so that more people were eligible reduced “job lock.”
And it goes on. But basically, work requirements are counterproductive and ineffective and based in false assumptions about the nature of the recipients of government benefits.
The world’s biggest oilseed processor just confirmed one of the soybean market’s biggest fears: China has essentially stopped buying U.S. supplies amid the brewing trade war.
“Whatever they’re buying is non-U.S.,” Bunge Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Soren Schroder said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “They’re buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S.”
Jobs reports continue to look good. 160k jobs added, below 4% unemployment - first time in almost two decades (2000 was the last year it was this low).
Professional Services is the big winner, but oddly manufacturing continues to see a continued boost for 2 straight years, after decades of jobs loss.
Overall, fundamentals in the economy still look strong, even as we continue to see a slight loss of steam.
The world’s biggest oilseed processor just confirmed one of the soybean market’s biggest fears: China has essentially stopped buying U.S. supplies amid the brewing trade war.
“Whatever they’re buying is non-U.S.,” Bunge Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Soren Schroder said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “They’re buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S.”
Rural (farming) areas: "I DON'T GET IT, WHY DO WE KEEP GETTING THE SHORT END OF THE STICK?! <votes Republican again>"
I think there's a decent amount of re-shoring happening right now as china gets expensive enough that it's not worth the hassle/logistics to keep stuff over there.
Plus a lot of us damn millennials found out machining and manufacturing is both relatively straight forward and fairly lucrative.
I think there's a decent amount of re-shoring happening right now as china gets expensive enough that it's not worth the hassle/logistics to keep stuff over there.
Plus a lot of us damn millennials found out machining and manufacturing is both relatively straight forward and fairly lucrative.
Also, new technologies have made small batch shops more viable, especially given the tolerances needed for modern defense and aerospace components
Posts
So they'll figure out how to save themselves and a few others?
No thanks.
You're ignoring the ultimate truth of human existence - we're all dead in the long run.
You're not relying on self preservation, you're relying on altruism for future generations, an altruism that does not exist.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Also, a lot of times, it's the rich that cause the dysfunction of the government, as the government becomes the sole entity with the power to threaten the security of the rich.
There isn't realistically any global warming model that renders the earth uninhabitable and as such people who count their fortunes in the billions are immune to its effects. They will always have enough to eat and drink. They'll never be swamped by environmental refugees. They'll get to live in all the greenest places.
Collective dangers don't apply to people who aren't part of the collective.
Public: Hey there's a lot of research coming out that says your practices are kind toxic, maybe we should regulate you.
Business: Actually i just invented this theory where all my practices are super perfect and the best course of action is for us to do exactly nothing.
Public: Well you are very rich so obviously you know better than me.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Bezos earned it by setting up a big company that sells things. He's not a vulture capitalist or anything.
I don't get where all this sudden Marxism is coming from on the internet, it seems all over.
I'd be happy to get into labor and wealth if a mod says it's on topic.
Not really; Singularity Theory is just that at some point, exponential advancement of technology will reach a point at which the leaps between generations will become more and more vast, and come at shorter and shorter intervals, that a human mind can no longer feasibly keep up with them.
Sort of like a cartoon snowball rolling down a mountain, becoming bigger and bigger and inconcievably bigger in a frighteningly short timespan and whoops there goes the Ski Villa, just broken timbers and snow.
EDIT: whoops, sorry Bogart
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/us-inequality-its-worse-than-we-thought
TLDR: The idea that people with less money can do stuff for themselves and thus make up some of the difference between themselves and those with more money is a myth. In fact, "home production" actually exacerbates income inequality.
That theory has always seemed like something people who aren't poor buy in to and the rest laugh about, but empirical backing is always nice.
Stick to the topic of this thread, please, or infractions bonds are going to start skyrocketing.
Can I buy in early on those?
This seems like one of those 'science reveals: water is wet!' studies. How are these results surprising at all, to anyone whose thought process went beyond some half baked idea of 'well poor people must just be lazy!'
Besides the hilarity of how this isn’t obvious to some people...
...the idea that poor folks really aren’t that poor because they have to work more hours and do harder physical work at home to keep from starving or being choked out by 6-foot tall weeds is FUCKING INFURIATING.
yeah, like:
No shit? Do people think that low-paying jobs just mean you only work a couple hours a week? Or that rich people just work more hours than there even are in a week or something?
Mweh. Doesn't seem that long ago that the news media was "surprised" that most entrepreneurs were already rich! Because it turns out that only idle rich people can really afford to take years off work and still have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars to pump into long-shot entrepreneurial ideas.
But the (near-)myth of the poor person who stumbles across a brilliant idea and turns it into a massive fortune is a core element of capitalist mythology. It's the pitch, as it were, and as it turns out, the real product is nothing like the pitch.
Also consider that a middle class family with a computer, car, garage, tools, time saving appliances, and a quarter acre suburban lot has a lot of capital to be productive with, compared to a poor family in a 1-2 bed 1-2 bathroom apartment living a bare bones lifestyle.
If they want to the middle class family can spend more time on earning side income, with much more productive enterprises, since they don't have to spend their time pinching every penny to make end's meet.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Its not as simple as it sounds on the outside, actually. Most economists (now and before) are perfectly aware that information is, in practice, rarely if ever perfect and that people are swayed by emotions other than calculating rationality. Its that finding ways to incorporate those things into models is fiendishly difficult, which is where work has been progressing lately.
Keep in mind that the thing the prize was written for was probably done in the 70s or 80s. There is a huge backlog in Econ Nobels because it takes time to determine which models bear fruit and are accepted and such are not.
Note also the above, about how the difficulty is generally in modeling.
As an Example: Paul Krugman got his Nobel in 2008 for work he did in 1978.
It’s not new and it’s very likely stuff like this (see below quote) coming to a head both in an intellectual and visceral manner. When people do not see results from the status quo they will look to other answers.
The government has the money, it can magic the money from the ether if it wanted to. It doesn't want to, a few billion a year is chump change
Also it makes me happy that these papers are being put out about antitrust cases and labor power. It builds off the enormous literature that the capital-labor ratio (i.e. automation) isn't actually as important for economic growth as people think. I think there's a case to be made that if the capital-labor ratio isn't important for growth, then it's probably not as important for inequality (my idea here being that if the economy is growing for years on end but inequality is also increasing, then the lion's share is going to the richest, but growth isn't the problem).
Yeah, from what I determined the point of this is less "this should be obvious" and more "here we have a model that shows this behaviour". It's good to get backing for these suppositions.
Eh. I can. His dad (a fairly influential now retired judge) was writing liberal things about copyright law in 2003. Eric probably followed a similar path once his dad started waking up
Just to chime in, for things as simple as car maintenance.
It is so much less expensive to use a cloth/rags and a bucket of soapy water, and your own vacuum to wash and clean your car. Something you generally need an outdoor space like a driveway for.
When living in small apartments, you pretty much have to either spend money on the drive thru washes or the wand washes, or even a detailing place, which is magnitudes more expensive because you dont have the space to doit at home.
MWO: Adamski
Judge Posner is an odd duck. He really doesn't fit into any political box. He leans libertarian, but with an economist flair. He's staunchly conservative in some areas, but incredibly liberal in others (he's all for legalization of drugs, even hard ones like heroin). I never got any cases of my own in front of the 7th, but I got to sit in on a number of oral arguments when I was in law school. He's one of the sharpest minds I've ever seen in person.
I do find it a bit funny that this "liberal" economist theory is coming out of UofC law school, which is the complete opposite of the general mode of thought from the UofC school of economics, which basically pushed our modern "monopolies don't matter any more" school of thought that has pervaded since the late 70s (much of which was pushed by Judge Posner back in the 80s).
http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/work-requirements-for-u-s-public-assistance-programs-dont-work/
And it goes on. But basically, work requirements are counterproductive and ineffective and based in false assumptions about the nature of the recipients of government benefits.
Jobs reports continue to look good. 160k jobs added, below 4% unemployment - first time in almost two decades (2000 was the last year it was this low).
Professional Services is the big winner, but oddly manufacturing continues to see a continued boost for 2 straight years, after decades of jobs loss.
Overall, fundamentals in the economy still look strong, even as we continue to see a slight loss of steam.
Rural (farming) areas: "I DON'T GET IT, WHY DO WE KEEP GETTING THE SHORT END OF THE STICK?! <votes Republican again>"
Plus a lot of us damn millennials found out machining and manufacturing is both relatively straight forward and fairly lucrative.
Also, new technologies have made small batch shops more viable, especially given the tolerances needed for modern defense and aerospace components