undefined

points

by jparishy9 hours ago |

comments

by manlymuppet9 hours ago|

[-]

The data by the Fed linked above is inflation adjusted.

by jparishy9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I realized after, yeah, thanks for calling out though.

by manlymuppet7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You are welcome. Though seeing your overwhelming openness and good nature in the rest of this thread, I now feel some regret in how I replied to you here.

I addressed but one of your points here and ignored essentially the rest of your reply. A rather myopic one sentence reply to a more nuanced comment.

Sorry to sink to the lowest common denominator, friend. Thank you for making me see this.

by derektank9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

For what it's worth, I thought the rest of your comment was a very accurate description of how labor and capital are reallocated within an industry. The question is simply whether it's a bad thing that Hollywood studios have decamped for Atlanta and Toronto. For the people working in LA that don't want to move, I'm sure the answer is yes. But on net, I think it's probably meant more and better work for more people in general.

by jparishy8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I really appreciate your perspective. Mine is definitely malleable on these topics; they're complicated and I'm not an economist.

re: regular people and their money, I will say, something about the bigger picture just feels off. I look at the graphs you linked to, and do not see it reflected in the people around me. I don't mean to be dismissive of the data, more that I feel like I am missing something, or it is, if that makes sense?

by rectang8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Since the 1980s, the wealthy have done fantastic while the rest have not done nearly as well. The argument from CATO and others is that we should be content with the majority of households taking home a shrinking share of an increasing pie so long as their absolute purchasing power isn’t decreasing, but that argument feels wrong in part because it’s human nature to measure status relative to others rather than in absolute terms.

Furthermore, wealth applies more pressure against certain costs like housing[1] than against others like food or durable goods. Cheap toasters only go so far in making people feel like they aren’t falling behind.

[1] https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-prices-surge-five-tim...

by yoyohello137 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This seems to be a common argument essentially “If a rich guy get $1000 and as a result I get $10, then I shouldn’t complain because I got $10” but this glosses over the fact that money is a proxy for power. The rich guy got more power over resources from this deal. Over the years this leads to more power inequality which is bad because now the rich guy can start doing other things to me and I have no recourse.

by rectang7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I agree, but I don't think many wealthy people are open to that perspective. Many seem to credit themselves with having created an environment where everyone's lot is improving in absolute terms, and don't see anything wrong with accumulating outsized relative power for themselves.

The reluctance to give up resources also an understandable aspect of human nature, but power concentration in the hands of the few is always problematic. I'm very much a capitalist but the last few decades have persuaded me that wealth taxes are a necessary and moral correction to capitalism's unfortunate spiraling acceleration of inequality.

by yoyohello136 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It’s a difficult conversation to have because critiquing the wealth accumulation tends to get you shouted down as a communist. I’m a believer in capitalism as well but our current system has produced people that are so wealthy they are effectively above the law. Some limit on wealth accumulation really needs to happen.

by rectang6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

To escape the "communist" critique, I think it's worthwhile to grapple with opposing all concentration of power, whether private or public, governmental or corporate.

For instance: marketplace competition requires some regulation, but recognizing that regulation is a necessary evil with many opportunities for abuse (e.g. regulatory capture) helps inoculate against socialism's worst excesses.