1055
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 126 points 2 weeks ago

At least productivity has house prices to hang out with

[-] [email protected] 51 points 2 weeks ago

I've never been a fan of NTR...

[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago

And it could be worse. They could be soaring as high as textbooks.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Jfc are textbooks prices even worse than when I was in undergrad? What do things typically cost now? It was awful when I was buying them.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

It was 200-300 for me 15 years ago. Worst part is you cannot pirate them because you need the online code that comes with a new book. I recall something dumb happening if you just got it separated from the book.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah some shift the pages a bit so you can’t buy the online portion separately and have it line up with a previous year’s version even though there is almost no difference in content. At least that’s how it was when I went to undergrad, sounds like about the same time you did.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] 93 points 2 weeks ago

“Look at that, proof that stagnant wages cause more productivity”

  • Our bosses
[-] [email protected] 66 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] 39 points 2 weeks ago

I like that they bring up all these informations, just to conclude, that neo-liberalism would be the solution (instead of the problem).

[-] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They don't actually answer that question. It's like they're building to a huge reveal, and then it just stops. Unless I missed it completely.

Edit. Never mind. It's just a bitcoin pump. What a waste.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Vietnam and feminism. Mostly feminism.

Women joining the workforce in huge numbers increased the labor pool without significantly changing the demand for goods or services. Thats basic supply and demand.

Owner class played the long game on that movement. Boiling a frog.

Nothing wrong with women working. And I’m not saying women can’t work.

All I’m saying is that we’re all complaining about needing two working adults in a household to survive, while simultaneously renting two adult bodies per household to the owner class.

I’m not saying how to fix it. I have no idea how to fix it. A massive strike sounds adequate, at least 35-50% of the workforce. Never going to happen though, because most of them need two incomes. Pretty shitty.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

How do you explain the concentration of wealth in the owner class, then? There are plenty of plots showing that in that website.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

How do you explain the concentration of wealth in the owner class, then?

Shortage of guillotines.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That’s a separate issue.

Most of the 1% don’t have their value on cash or from wages. It’s all a giant scattered portfolio, funded largely by loans against stocks which make up most of their compensation. Most of the portfolio cannot be easily liquidated, at least not in large amounts, without serious rippling effects in the economy.

The problem comes in being able to place loans against stocks to fund future investments. In theory, it’s a high-risk, high-reward opportunity that’s available to all. It could be a great mechanism for middle-class stock owners to build a comfortable nest egg…but instead what’s left of the middle class has whatever stocks they own in their 401k and if they did have other stocks, the risk is far too great to be palatable to most of them. At the scale of billionaires, though, putting a few million worth of stocks as collateral for a loan to start a new company is practically Monopoly money.

CEO salary is interesting. Most of the big salaries that get people pissed off are in the S&P500. Those salaries are insanely high, far higher than they should be.

It is worth considering, though, that the S&P 500 are some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world. It does deserve some sort of an exceptional wage to be responsible for steering those ships. Not hundreds of millions, probably not even tens of millions, but the CEOs are the figureheads of companies directly responsible for the livelihoods of millions of people, not just their employees but entire economies.

Thats an insane amount of pressure, and ought to be well compensated. And CEOs aren’t really there for leadership qualities or whatever they say they are (although some of the celebrity/prima donna CEOs certainly bring their own different breed of value to the companies they represent…people like Musk, Gates, Jobs, etc). They are there to be a person to point to when shit hits the fan. As they say, you don’t pay a hooker for sex, you pay a hooker to be quiet.

In my opinion, I think that a CEOs pay should, generally, be a significant salary proportional to the market-cap of the company, and a large percentage of stocks should not be able to be touched until 1 year following the CEOs departure from the companies.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

We’re past the point of asking for ethics, I don’t think you interpreted the guillotines remark correctly.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

It’s all a giant scattered portfolio, funded largely by loans against stocks which make up most of their compensation.

Yep. A solution is a tax on registered securities. Any individual holding more than $100 million in registered securities owes 5% on that excess value, per year.

Most of the portfolio cannot be easily liquidated, at least not in large amounts, without serious rippling effects in the economy.

Nah. They don't have to liquidate their holdings. We'll go ahead and do that for them. We'll take 5% of each of their positions each year. Transfer them to an IRS liquidator, who will sell them off over months, years, decades if needed, in small quantities, no more than 5% of traded volume per month.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I know what would fix it, the French method. Fix that shit real fast.

[-] [email protected] 49 points 2 weeks ago

It's time for productivity to go down.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

I go down productively all the time, does that count?

[-] [email protected] 32 points 2 weeks ago

What happened 1979? Reagan?

[-] [email protected] 68 points 2 weeks ago

1979 was Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. Reagan did not start until 1980, and while he is famous for breaking the backs of unions, thus crippling their ability to fight back against this trend, he did not actually start it.

Before Carter was Ford and Nixon, both Republicans. Ford pardoned Nixon's crimes, supposedly to help "heal the nation".

According to Robert Reich's "Inequality for All" (free link) - he was the Secretary of Labor under Clinton and previously served under both the Carter and Ford administration so he was very much attuned to what was going on - this trend started due to the rise of corporations, which have super-rights that humans do not have. e.g., taxes on stock dividends were capped at like 13% while payroll taxes can go up to >35%, and while if a human commits a crime they would go to jail, but not so with a corporation. It's a great racket scheme for the rich to cover themselves in a legal fiction so as to avoid pretty much any responsibility for their actions. Hence why we see so many corporations acting so very boldly to destroy the planet - after all, why not? What's the worst that could happen to them in return?

[-] [email protected] 25 points 2 weeks ago

I was surprised to learn that Carter deregulated trucking, which devastated wages for truckers, and they never recovered.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, I never knew that - he was before my time, thanks for sharing that :-).

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Carter has become something of a sacred cow among progressives. His post-presidency had shown him to be a wonderful human being, but there's lots to criticize about his time in office.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Can you clarify what you mean by rise of corporations?

I'm asking since I recently learned they'd existed for hundreds of years by then, at least. My understanding is the British East India Co was the first legit corpo

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Robert Reich can definitely explain it better than I:-). Basically any law that further enhances their protection moves them forward - e.g. Citizens United - while other things may pull them back, e.g. Obama raised the marginal top tax rate on dividends.

But corporations can do many things, like corporation A takes out a huge loan, builds a building, then hands it to B, then defaults on the loan, even while the board members of B are the same humans as were on A. Sounds like stealing right? Humans need to eat, breathe, sleep, and pay their debts, but corporations do not, plus have special protections besides. In the USA, a "President" of a legal entity can be held liable for actions taken by either himself or by the company, whereas a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) not as much.

Corporations helped do things not otherwise possible, e.g. didn't they build the Panama Canal? At the time that was such a huge endeavor that a single normal company could not have done it.

But there's a balance, and all told that balance has as of late tipped towards enhancing protections for corporations while offering less rights to the humans, i.e. the former has risen and by implication, at the expense of the latter.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Reagan was a couple of years later.

Coincidentally though, Thatcher happened in 1979, and Reagan is just Thatcher with a penis.

But the real answer is likely that after the financial troubles in the 70s and sky high inflation, there was a number of changes in government to try to have and maintain low inflation - things like higher levels of unemployment being tolerated, employer protection laws not evolving to combat companies' growing anti-union sentiment, fewer and smaller rises in minimum wages.

At the same time, lowering of tax rates on wealthy/high income people meant those people at the top wanted to take more of the pie than ever before, knowing that far less of it would end up being lost as taxes anyway, and that meant less for the workers.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I’m really surprised no one here has mentioned this yet, but a huge factor would have to be globalization and the offshoring of American manufacturing.

It started in the 70’s, with companies like GE and the car manufacturers moving factories to Mexico and later Asia, and with growing supply of imported cheap goods like steel. This really took off in the 80’s and 90’s with deliberate market liberalization and promotion of globalization during the Reagan/Bush and Clinton administrations.

In other words, American workers’ wages were pressured by the extremely low wages of overseas labour.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

spoiler: productivity is cheating on wages with CEO wages

"our company is making tons of profit, it must be because of the CEO, let's give him more money"

[-] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago

Reganomics my ass. Somebody call Doc Brown, I need to go instigate a paradox real quick.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No need to, someone always already did. We're just in the timeline that goes back so it can't change this one. Everyone else gets the benefit.

Screw you Asafum-UN420:69 you're in the nice universe with no runaway capitalism!

[-] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yes.

In a post scarcity economy, it only makes sense. It would be better for everyone, even nature I bet.

It would give people options to pursue the career they enjoy.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

Should have started in the industrial revolution, clearly should have started in the petroleum/corn age, and stupidly far behind in the computer age.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

Imagine all the brilliant scientists/artists/engineers/etc stuck in a dead-end jobs just because food & rent.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago

We could have a new Renaissance, but we are owned.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

but we are owned

:(

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

It makes sense in any economy, which has enough material to provide the basics to everybody. We indeed could do it today, even though we have material constraints as we can see with the climate crisis for example.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

... among many other things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

The key takeaway here is that we need to be less productive - c'mon everyone, she's counting on us! 🙃

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
1055 points (98.4% liked)

memes

1743 readers
1056 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS