|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 12 2018 05:55 Nyxisto wrote:
That's true. Most issues that today would improve the average citizens quality of life in rich Western nations are related to the effectiveness of governance and providing services like housing, education, elderly care, health care and so forth. The class war rhetoric is deeply misguided and largely happens in the abstract. If you want to have a real impact today get involved in your cities politicsand try to convince people to build more housing and simplify zoning regulation. Business, government and markets all have a role to play.
When it comes to tech I'm more worried about the social impact that companies like Facebook have on our politics. Characterising Mark Zuckerberg et al as robber barons seems more than a little odd. If they were poor nobody else would be better off. They've largely generated wealth rather than extracted it from anyone, so people would be better off to focus on the few actual robber barons still around.
How would limiting how much wealth Zuckerberg (or whoever) could horde not necessitate that wealth generated be spread to more people improving the material conditions of their lives? I don't understand how limiting his personal wealth doesn't improve the material conditions of the lives of the people he is mandated to share it with?
|
No one earns a billion dollars. They may facilitate the generation of a billion dollars for their company, but that wealth came from someplace. And it could have gone someplace else.
That being said, trying to transfer the wealthy away from someone like Zuck is sort of low hanging fruit that won’t stop other billionaires from trying to control even more money. Focus on effectively taxing future earnings and forget the billions they already have.
|
Uhm...but...Zuckerberg and every other billionaire are sharing their wealth, that's how investments work.
Our entire system is built on borrowed money, sharing is caring...about interest, not people of course. 
"People are expendable, we got plenty of those...
What we really need is more money to buy big estates surrounded by big shiny marble walls, guarded by private security to keep smelly poor people at least 20 miles away from us."
Sadly that's exactly what people with an 8 figure salary think, all those zeros on their paycheck come with a catch....Zero empathy for anybody else.
|
On September 12 2018 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 05:55 Nyxisto wrote:
That's true. Most issues that today would improve the average citizens quality of life in rich Western nations are related to the effectiveness of governance and providing services like housing, education, elderly care, health care and so forth. The class war rhetoric is deeply misguided and largely happens in the abstract. If you want to have a real impact today get involved in your cities politicsand try to convince people to build more housing and simplify zoning regulation. Business, government and markets all have a role to play.
When it comes to tech I'm more worried about the social impact that companies like Facebook have on our politics. Characterising Mark Zuckerberg et al as robber barons seems more than a little odd. If they were poor nobody else would be better off. They've largely generated wealth rather than extracted it from anyone, so people would be better off to focus on the few actual robber barons still around. How would limiting how much wealth Zuckerberg ( or whoever) could horde not necessitate that wealth generated be spread to more people improving the material conditions of their lives? I don't understand how limiting his personal wealth doesn't improve the material conditions of the lives of the people he is mandated to share it with?
Redistribution helps on the margins but Zuckerberg isn't rich because he has cheated in some zero-sum game, he's rich because he has created wealth, and stopping people who create wealth is generally not a good idea and helps nobody. (The fact aside that Zuckerberg and the other tech guys seem to be parting with their money voluntarily anyway). What sustains entire countries isn't billionaires forking over their shares, it's having a productive workforce and clean administrations that sustain high growth. The US government taxes more progressively than European governments and is jus tas well funded, but produces much worse results. Money is not the problem.
Much more can be achieved by focussing on concrete, pragmatic goals rather than talking about abstract equality. Try to diminish the influence of the car and push for walkable cities with solid transport systems and higher density, see that teachers are well compensated and access to good schools is universal. Establish vocational training as an alternative for people who do not want or are not capable of going to college. Support better nutrition for the poor and public health programs. A good deal of malaise in the developed world could be avoided by pricing in the costs of our increasingly unhealthy lifestyles.
|
I'm with you most of the way Nyxisto, but it's going to be a reality that all these tech companies that have valuations in or going into the trillions derive their market cap from network effects that are basically insurmountable barriers to entry. They're all still founder-led companies so they get a lot more sympathy than the average fortune 500.
Once/if each of these industries mature, society will be better off regulating them as utilities than giving private monopolies free reign. I don't particularly care how much money Zuckerberg has.
|
Yes, I agree. People have been talking about sovereign wealth funds a lot as a way to give everyone more access to the capital of tech giants, I like that idea. I'm not saying redistribution is bad, I'm just saying that this narrative about 'the rich' as the root of all evil is missing the point. Fixing broken institutions that do not deliver effectively is the much bigger concern.
For example, if you look at how most European countries fund their expensive welfare states, it's not at all by taxing the rich. European states collect money from VATs and high taxes on labour and then spend them ambitiously on programs that effectively help the poorest.
I'm bringing this up in the context of GHs post because American progressives talk about central and Northern Europe as if we are chasing the millionaires through the streets for their money, but it's not at all true.
|
On September 12 2018 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 12 2018 05:55 Nyxisto wrote:
That's true. Most issues that today would improve the average citizens quality of life in rich Western nations are related to the effectiveness of governance and providing services like housing, education, elderly care, health care and so forth. The class war rhetoric is deeply misguided and largely happens in the abstract. If you want to have a real impact today get involved in your cities politicsand try to convince people to build more housing and simplify zoning regulation. Business, government and markets all have a role to play.
When it comes to tech I'm more worried about the social impact that companies like Facebook have on our politics. Characterising Mark Zuckerberg et al as robber barons seems more than a little odd. If they were poor nobody else would be better off. They've largely generated wealth rather than extracted it from anyone, so people would be better off to focus on the few actual robber barons still around. How would limiting how much wealth Zuckerberg ( or whoever) could horde not necessitate that wealth generated be spread to more people improving the material conditions of their lives? I don't understand how limiting his personal wealth doesn't improve the material conditions of the lives of the people he is mandated to share it with? Redistribution helps on the margins but Zuckerberg isn't rich because he has cheated in some zero-sum game, he's rich because he has created wealth, and stopping people who create wealth is generally not a good idea and helps nobody. (The fact aside that Zuckerberg and the other tech guys seem to be parting with their money voluntarily anyway). What sustains entire countries isn't billionaires forking over their shares, it's having a productive workforce and clean administrations that sustain high growth. The US government taxes more progressively than European governments and is jus tas well funded, but produces much worse results. Money is not the problem. Much more can be achieved by focussing on concrete, pragmatic goals rather than talking about abstract equality. Try to diminish the influence of the car and push for walkable cities with solid transport systems and higher density, see that teachers are well compensated and access to good schools is universal. Establish vocational training as an alternative for people who do not want or are not capable of going to college. Support better nutrition for the poor and public health programs. A good deal of malaise in the developed world could be avoided by pricing in the costs of our increasingly unhealthy lifestyles.
do you have good sources on the progressivity of the various european gov't taxes? I'd be interested to peruse them.
|
I don't have anything at hand, but here's a good article that has several references to data and studies on progressivity in different countries. You might find something in there.
|
On September 12 2018 10:50 Nyxisto wrote:I don't have anything at hand, but here's a good article that has several references to data and studies on progressivity in different countries. You might find something in there.
ah yes; the underlying sources it links to have some very nice data, thanks.
|
On September 12 2018 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 12 2018 05:55 Nyxisto wrote:
That's true. Most issues that today would improve the average citizens quality of life in rich Western nations are related to the effectiveness of governance and providing services like housing, education, elderly care, health care and so forth. The class war rhetoric is deeply misguided and largely happens in the abstract. If you want to have a real impact today get involved in your cities politicsand try to convince people to build more housing and simplify zoning regulation. Business, government and markets all have a role to play.
When it comes to tech I'm more worried about the social impact that companies like Facebook have on our politics. Characterising Mark Zuckerberg et al as robber barons seems more than a little odd. If they were poor nobody else would be better off. They've largely generated wealth rather than extracted it from anyone, so people would be better off to focus on the few actual robber barons still around. How would limiting how much wealth Zuckerberg ( or whoever) could horde not necessitate that wealth generated be spread to more people improving the material conditions of their lives? I don't understand how limiting his personal wealth doesn't improve the material conditions of the lives of the people he is mandated to share it with? Redistribution helps on the margins but Zuckerberg isn't rich because he has cheated in some zero-sum game, he's rich because he has created wealth, and stopping people who create wealth is generally not a good idea and helps nobody. (The fact aside that Zuckerberg and the other tech guys seem to be parting with their money voluntarily anyway). What sustains entire countries isn't billionaires forking over their shares, it's having a productive workforce and clean administrations that sustain high growth. The US government taxes more progressively than European governments and is jus tas well funded, but produces much worse results. Money is not the problem. Much more can be achieved by focussing on concrete, pragmatic goals rather than talking about abstract equality. Try to diminish the influence of the car and push for walkable cities with solid transport systems and higher density, see that teachers are well compensated and access to good schools is universal. Establish vocational training as an alternative for people who do not want or are not capable of going to college. Support better nutrition for the poor and public health programs. A good deal of malaise in the developed world could be avoided by pricing in the costs of our increasingly unhealthy lifestyles.
No one said anything about stopping him from creating wealth?
I don't disagree that productive work forces and clean administrations are the lifeblood of a nation, I just have seen in practically every historical example it's the wealthy who resist, corrupt the administrations, and argue they are righteously acting in the ethos of capitalism.
The "pragmatic" approach you suggest is the one that keeps people on the treadmill chasing the carrot and running from the stick imo.
I can't speak to the political situation in too much detail in Europe, but it's abundantly clear in the US that the levers to implement the types of reforms you suggest are controlled by those who have no interest in pulling them, or relinquishing control, and in the US can and have gone as far as assassinating people who try to stop them.
Revolutions get a lot of flack for violence and loss of life, but pragmatic progressives have their own body count, even if they rarely if ever take responsibility for it.
|
Regarding taxation and how it affects incentives, saw a reference to this paper recently:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w24982
It's based on US data. From the abstract:
We find that taxes matter for innovation: higher personal and corporate income taxes negatively affect the quantity, quality, and location of inventive activity at the macro and micro levels.
|
Norway28738 Posts
We don't chase our billionaires on the street and yea, 'ordinary citizens' take a larger tax burden than in the US. But we don't have a high billionaire:inhabitant ratio in the first place.
I'm not a huge fan of simply redistributing wealth (creates a 'leecher' sub-class who get looked down upon by others and also by themselves), but I am a huge fan of limits for CEO pay, high minimum wage levels (Norway technically doesn't have a minimum wage, but functionally it's something like $20/h), and even worker ownership of the companies they work for. I used to work in a factory/warehouse, and my boss (who was the boss of like ~40 people) made something like 40-50% more than I did (in hourly salary anyway, I was working part time). His boss again probably made about 2x what I did, maybe 2.5x. With this type of wage distribution there's no need for a really progressive taxation system because there's a much smaller degree of wealth accumulation and concentration for the top whatever %.
|
On June 05 2017 00:31 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's popularity will plummet fast. At the end of this autumn he should already be weakened, maybe already worn-out if a hard conflict arises. His labour bill will make him unpopular to the lower classes, and this is just the first of all the neoliberal counter-reforms he wants to pass. There is no sociological majority to support his program, but since you can get all powers with 25-30% of the votes in our "democracy" he'll be able to govern against most of the country. His policies will at most turn unemployed people into poor, precarious workers so he won't gain any social base here. Macron's mandate is a programmed failure.
On April 24 2017 03:57 TheDwf wrote:
Also masterclass of being literally pushed by the billionaires' class, always nice to have newspapers talking 24/7 about you for months
Insane alignment of planets with Hollande withdrawing, Juppé losing, Valls getting stomped, Fillon's scandal
Karma will soon backfire on him
A few months after his election, 75% of the population will hate him, it will be terrible
Macron's popularity in the last Ipsos poll:
+ Show Spoiler +
Compared with previous presidents:
+ Show Spoiler +
Macron is in free fall a bit everywhere in polls:
Viavoice 36 (-1)
Ifop 34 (-5)
Kantar 33 (+1)
BVA 34 (-5)
Harris 36 (-6)
Ifop/Paris Match 31 (-10)
Yougov 23 (-4)
Elabe 31 (-5)
Odoxa 27 (-10)
Ipsos 27 (-7)
Average approval rating since his election:
+ Show Spoiler +
The average should be below 30 for September.
More taxes, reverse redistributing from the majority to the super-riches, low growth, no results on unemployment, affairs... Who could have guessed?!
|
I'm not sure about French politics, but they do this in Dutch politics all the time too, and it is entirely irrelevant. Polls only matter when there's something to be voted for.
|
On September 12 2018 17:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
We don't chase our billionaires on the street and yea, 'ordinary citizens' take a larger tax burden than in the US. But we don't have a high billionaire:inhabitant ratio in the first place.
I'm not a huge fan of simply redistributing wealth (creates a 'leecher' sub-class who get looked down upon by others and also by themselves), but I am a huge fan of limits for CEO pay, high minimum wage levels (Norway technically doesn't have a minimum wage, but functionally it's something like $20/h), and even worker ownership of the companies they work for. I used to work in a factory/warehouse, and my boss (who was the boss of like ~40 people) made something like 40-50% more than I did (in hourly salary anyway, I was working part time). His boss again probably made about 2x what I did, maybe 2.5x. With this type of wage distribution there's no need for a really progressive taxation system because there's a much smaller degree of wealth accumulation and concentration for the top whatever %.
to what extent do regulations such as that function as complex, less-transparent ways of redistributing wealth? (as compared to the simple redistribution by taxing and giving it to others)
|
Norway28738 Posts
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative.
|
Liquid'Drone is it that the 'ruling classes are much less exploitative' in the Nordics due to cultural reasons or was it legislated? Would legislating that bring on the same results?
What if you're a sports drink company in Hungary, competing against sports drinks companies in Austria, Germany and Romania. Hungary then legislates to limits CEO pay. One of the effects is that the shareholders of the Hungarian sports drink company are going to be at a disadvantage in hiring the best possible CEO as opposed to their competitors in other countries. That'll hurt the bottom line of the company, which would tend to result in reducing the number of workers and so on.
I can't really defend limiting CEO pay when I think of incentives. If shareholders feel that CEOs don't impact results then they wouldn't pay them so much. If they feel that company cohesion and worker happiness would be significantly better if pay was more evenly distributed, then they'd be inclined to have more levelled pay schemes.
A more fun argument against legislating about CEO pay is that you probably want the psychopaths in society to work in the private sector as opposed to the government where they could do a lot more damage. Therefore, limiting CEO pay would reduce their incentive to work in the private sector.
|
On September 12 2018 22:05 warding wrote:
Liquid'Drone is it that the 'ruling classes are much less exploitative' in the Nordics due to cultural reasons or was it legislated? Would legislating that bring on the same results?
What if you're a sports drink company in Hungary, competing against sports drinks companies in Austria, Germany and Romania. Hungary then legislates to limits CEO pay. One of the effects is that the shareholders of the Hungarian sports drink company are going to be at a disadvantage in hiring the best possible CEO as opposed to their competitors in other countries. That'll hurt the bottom line of the company, which would tend to result in reducing the number of workers and so on.
I can't really defend limiting CEO pay when I think of incentives. If shareholders feel that CEOs don't impact results then they wouldn't pay them so much. If they feel that company cohesion and worker happiness would be significantly better if pay was more evenly distributed, then they'd be inclined to have more levelled pay schemes.
A more fun argument against legislating about CEO pay is that you probably want the psychopaths in society to work in the private sector as opposed to the government where they could do a lot more damage. Therefore, limiting CEO pay would reduce their incentive to work in the private sector.
That argument only holds if CEO salary requirements are indicative of their quality. I'm not sure that's true at all.
As an example from my own line of work: some (most) of the best scientists work in universities or government labs, with relatively low salary ceilings compared to the private sector. If money was the only driving force here, wouldn't all of these be working in private industry?
I don't know why managerial skills are different from scientific skills. There's all kinds of other factors: perhaps the best Hungarian CEOs would rather grow Hungarian companies than "sell out" and manage an Austrian company. Perhaps they have a family in Hungary and don't want to move. Perhaps they simply enjoy the quality of life that Budapest offers. Or perhaps salary requests are only indicative of how big a CEO's ego is, rather than the actual quality of his work.
|
On September 12 2018 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative.
so, to be clear,
you agree that it is a form of wealth redistribution, that due to its complexity, causes fewer social problems in practice because it's a less transparent way of redistributing the wealth that meshes better with human psychology?
Just trying to be clear on your answer to my prior query. as while your response is interesting and nuanced, it didn't include a clear, specific answer to my question.
|
Norway28738 Posts
I'm not an expert on this tbh. But my understanding is that it's a combination of cultural factors (we never really had nobility in Norway, a worker can address his boss, or a student his teacher/professor, with 'hey, you', this type of sense of equality permeates all layers of society) and very strong labor unions negotiating salaries that have probably been so high that there hasn't been that much of an option for CEO's giving themselves exorbitant raises.
Irc we also have some of the most productive workers in the world, though. I think there's a strong relation.
But no, to my knowledge there isn't and hasn't been any legal restrictions on how much leaders can be paid, and there seems to have been some (negative, from my pov) changes to match global standards, and yes, this based on the argument that it's required to attract top talent. (CEO of Statoil was paid about $10 million in 2015, although like $8 million of that was in the form of bonuses, if I'm understanding it correctly).
I'm not suggesting that you can quickly implement a 'ceo can only be paid 5 times entry level worker salary' rule and it'll be great and not have any negative consequences (even if I in theory am supportive of such a policy - but that's different from wanting it legally formalized). But I think if full time workers of companies are dependent on government handouts to make ends meet, then that's a much bigger issue, and I think in the US, there are certainly examples of CEOs or owners of large companies making incredible amounts of money through underpaying their workers, notably walmart and amazon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dm4TPNKX0AAsizJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dm4bPitXsAAq5xC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lKDqs0K.jpg)
