I’m a huge Krugman fan, but he’s definitely a lefty.
I doubt that they got that from their wages – it’s because they owned the equity in the company.
As others have said, it’s always been there. It just that the importance of that messaging wasn’t as apparent up until around 2015 (well, at least from the time FDR was elected up until 2015), when the oligarchs in western nations got the upper hand.
It’s your standard slopulist messaging. THEY are the root cause of all your problems. We just need to get THEM and everything will be better.
Who THEY are changes, as do the details of what we need to do to get them. Slopulism is a lot like mad libs in that way. But it’s equally as empty of substance.
The fact is that our system is pretty good overall, but could use some tweaks. Figuring out what those tweaks are is hard work, though, and small incremental changes are boring. It’s much more fun to slopulistly pick a target to paint with a broad brush, blame all your problems on them, and advocate for “revolutionary” change, IE burning the current system down with no plan for what to do next.
Small megacorporations.
Smaller companies means more competition, more progress, lower prices, better pay and less concentration of power among a tiny elite. We’re not against capitalism here (at least most of us aren’t); we’re against whatever the fuck is happening right now.
What numbers are you looking at my guy? The system isn’t working for most Americans. I’m lucky to be where I’m at and even I’m feeling it.
The problem with billionaires making all the decisions is they are isolated from the impact of all their decisions. When they decide whether to cut back on environmental regulations in the face of the enormous hazards of climate change, they will not much be affected by climate change. In a very real sense, nothing they do matters to them. They will not much be affected by any decision they make, including the decisions that will have a catastrophic impact on the lives of others.
I don’t think I’d have so much of a problem with billionaires if they weren’t the ones overwhelmingly making all the decisions about what happens to the rest of us. Their lives are so radically different they have no reference point, no ability to judge, what’s a good or bad idea for people like me.
Did you mean to post this elsewhere? No one here seems to be advocating for burning it all down.
It is a fact that wealth inequality in the US has gotten much worse, starting from about the 1980s. A major cause is a less progressive tax system and lower corporate taxes. To reverse that, you can make the tax system more progressive (higher taxes for higher income), increase capital gains taxes, remove tax shelters for certain kinds of income.
The barrier to doing that is that politicians are bought and sold by corporations and the ultrawealthy, since there are few limits to campaign contributions and advertising.
Stronger enforcement of antitrust laws would also go a long way. And, support for unions and workers’ rights.
In the 80s, Reagan started reducing taxes on the wealthy and busting unions. Bush II continued reducing those taxes, and Trump did it in each of his terms, including lower corporate taxes.
Things really are different than they were before that train got started.
Also to shield their owners from liability, facilitate capital raising, and avoid dissolution in the event an owner retires or dies.
There’s also this:
There’s a saying where I come from: “If you’re going to pee in the pool, at least don’t do it from the diving board”. In other words, if you’re going to act in an unseemly, off-putting manner, at least have the decency to be discreet about it.
The very rich have always had odious opinions, but in the past, they used to express them in private at the country club, not trumpet them on on social media. Likewise, they always used to influence the government, but they used to do it from smoke-filled rooms, not from Cabinet. The oligarchs have lost whatever shame they once had in recent years, and people are reacting.
I’m sorry but it is just simply not true that jobs today are more “dangerous and demoralizing” than they were in the past. Workplace injuries are down significantly from where they were in even the 2000s.
You can point out worrying trends in employment, like the toxic sides to the gig economy, without hyperbole that makes it difficult to take your main point seriously.
Again, this is the kind of hyperbole that makes it far too easy to dismiss your valid directional claim.
Are cuts to the FDA and the appointment of the wormiest HHS secretary of all times bad? Yes, absolutely. Are they headed in the wrong direction? Sure are. Is that the direction where things were when The Jungle was written? Yes.
But unless your claim is that common practice in the US today includes the below list, you are also being needlessly hyperbolic:
- Mixing rotten sausage meat in with fresh meat to mask the smell and sell the rotten meat anyways
- Leaving meat in unrefrigerated unsealed sheds where rats run over the meat and shit on it
- Putting poisoned loaves of bread in the meat sheds to kill the rats and grinding up the bread along with the meat when making sausage
- Treating spoiled sausages with borax and glycerine before mixing them back into the next batch
(I won’t include the claim of people falling into vats of hot fat and being left there to render into lard, because I think even in the novel that was not intended as something that happened routinely).
I don’t think that anyone believes that. The solution is regulation, not treating “billionaires” as the enemy.
Business owners, like everyone else, is going to, for the most part, operate in their own self interest. The trick is to create a system of incentives and punishments that ensures that people’s self interest aligns with the interests of society at large.
He’s a little left of conventional mainstream professional economists, true, but he is by no means a socialist or even an advocate of Modern Monetary Theory. He describes himself as a liberal, and has pushed that to “social democrat” at times, but again, not a socialist and so more in the middle than on the left save by comparison to people like Milton Friedman and Gregory Mankiw.
What is the “correct” order of magnitude by which a CEO should outearn an “average grunt” and why?
To be honest with you, I think I’m hearing a lot less about climate change now than I was in, say, the early to mid 2000s. Which, to be clear, I think is a problem. We should be talking about it more now. But we aren’t.
In many competitions, such as the 100 metre race and many job positions, winning by 10% is huge–nearly a second off the 100 metre race, while many job applications are so close that a coin toss might as well decide the winner. But let’s say there is a 10% edge in the winner of a promotion. So we pay the winner 10% more for their promotion.
How many steps are there from “average grunt” to CEO? 10? Average grunt (what a nasty turn of phrase that is, btw) to foreperson to division manager to regional manager to assistant VP to VP, etc.. So, a 10% raise at each step is justified. 10 steps, 10% a step, so a pay increase of 100%, or twice that of the average grunt, may be justified. Maybe. IMHO.
Even Adam Smith writing in 1776 talked about the dangers of monopolies. No one should be in favor of anticompetitive practices; they are bad for everyone. Even the monopolist, in the long term.
People’s quality of life is much higher than when I was growing up three decades ago by almost every measure. People definitely have a harder time saving, or buying a house, but a lot of that has to do with the decisions people are making. People consume more nowadays, not just things but services; Uber Eats isn’t treated as the enormous luxury that that sort of food delivery was when I was young, as just one example.
What measures are you looking at?
The problem with the idea that billionaires make all the decisions is that there are a lot of billionaires who disagree with one another just about as much as the rest of us do. There are billionaires throwing their weight behind pro choice messaging and abortion banning messaging, pro gun and pro gun control messaging, Republican and Democrat, and so on and so on… Billionaires aren’t a unified monolithic force acting to control society. They aren’t even really a group of people; they are separate people who can even be quite antagonistic to one another who all fall into a category.
Which is sort of my point. But they also founded and ran the company.
But I guess what I’m trying to figure out what exactly the fuck is happening right now.
Why do the largest corporations consist of online marketplaces for selling stuff, social media, streaming services, technology to power these things, maybe an odd energy or healthcare company?
What makes this sort of analysis a more valid way of deciding how much a CEO should be paid than any other system? Such as, for example, the free market?