What It Takes to Be in the 1% Around the World

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If unions operated in a normal capitalist system, I would agree. The problem is govt rules heavily favor the unions, so it's extremely painful to cross a union. Unless it's life or death for the company, they are better off giving in most of the time...

The result is when there is an impasse, what often happens is the company holds the line as best they can ultimately gives in...but when it comes time to make a major change (like refurbish a plant), they simply let that plant die and let the workers go. They may open an overseas plant or move parts of the work to new suppliers who are non-union or overseas. So it can take years before you see the impact of capitalism.

Yes, huge distortions in the free market system from government rules and regulations --- on both sides. I would not say that the employee or the union has any more favor than the employer. They are all given restrictions and rights that are supposed to work for the general good.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I'm not sure how you can suggest it is somehow un-free market to have workers act collectively. Should they not be free to join together to better balance the power imbalance at the bargaining table?

And I hope you're not suggesting the power balance is somehow equal between the typical business owner vs the individual employee. This is almost never the case, which is exactly why business owners always push for weaker union rules, and always try hard to prevent a union from taking hold.

I'm not suggesting unions are somehow paragons of righteousness and business owners are evil wretches. Neither is true. At the bargaining table it's all about meeting power with power. Unions are simply one way workers can match the power that owners bring.

It's a well established fact that unionized workers generally have higher wages and stronger general benefits and working conditions. Which is why I say, if we really want to address income and wealth inequality in our societies, the best way is to support unionization.

Otherwise, we're left with taxation and other legal interventions as the principle method of redistribution. I think we all agree, this is less desirable.

Yes I am suggesting the power balance is equal. Workers can stay, leave, negotiate, or not take the job which was your assertion of the free market state. Employers can and do modify their wages and other benefits to suit the market in an attempt to make their company the best it can be for all involved.

[jimbunyard]

These 'arguments' remind me of the 'idea' that the 'market' is run (and hence, can be predicted) by cool intellection and logic.

For which, if I remember correctly, recognition of the fact that that is far from the case, was awarded a Nobel a few years ago...

It is interesting that many of the 'advanced' countries that have the highest ratings of 'happiness' and (very) general tranquillity also have the highest levels of 'societal support' (and also a lack of 'religious fervor').

Using the US population as an example for the trajectory of that of the rest of the world's is at best a sign of provinciality, and more likely a fool's errand. The current US situation is likely transitional, and, though exacerbated by the division brought to a head by Trumpism and a-social media (among other things -- for instance, the deterioration of the US educational system) has been evident for a long time, and was introduced and assured by the foolish and myopic neo-liberal policies established by (forced on?) Reagan and Thatcher in the late 70's and early 80's. (Leaving aside the [apparently cyclical] current global trend towards authoritarianism and away from liberalism...)

The real question is (like so many of the 'affluent' world's problems) how most will adapt to this transition and the world after, and how well they'll like it...


Apparently, from many of these posts, not too much.


Like it or not, some type of 'work' is a necessary prerequisite for a 'normally' functioning, balanced human mind.

That that 'work' might take on non-traditional or even unrecognized forms (like 'consumption' of video games or prostituting oneself on utube) seems to confuse (not to mention anger) a lot of people...perhaps unsurprisingly, a number heavily weighted towards those believing in 'the power of the free market'

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Yes I am suggesting the power balance is equal. Workers can stay, leave, negotiate, or not take the job which was your assertion of the free market state. Employers can and do modify their wages and other benefits to suit the market in an attempt to make their company the best it can be for all involved.

We have little basis for discussion then.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Paul L

That's what you would expect, but it has not been that way in actual practice

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/04/...e-to-work.html

If you are expecting it to be like a light switch... you would be correct but on a large scale the market takes time to react and it is shifting as expected. Of course, as originally noted, there are still very generous programs for those who would prefer not to work.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

These 'arguments' remind me of the 'idea' that the 'market' is run (and hence, can be predicted) by cool intellection and logic.

It is interesting that many of the 'advanced' countries that have the highest ratings of 'happiness' and (very) general tranquillity also have the highest levels of 'societal support' (and also a lack of 'religious fervor').

The market does follow logic...but it's over a longer period. For short term shocks, the market can be very irrational. Those who retain a cool head in uncertain times, usually do very well.

As far as surveys, those are typically manipulated. They often simply are set up to praise the country that has the most socialist programs. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

To counter surveys...When you look at people immigrating for a better life, guess which country is still at the top of the preferred options.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If you are expecting it to be like a light switch... you would be correct but on a large scale the market takes time to react and it is shifting as expected. Of course, as originally noted, there are still very generous programs for those who would prefer not to work.

I would expect the most current data to match your hypothesis as to why the working population has shrunk. When the data doesn't support what you claim, I'd look for other reasons. Since other economies that are first world and have far higher social support programs have not seen the drop in total employment, there is most likely some more subtle and complex reasons for it other than a relatively weak unemployment check.

[GordMay]

Could it be that the shrinking working population, coincides with the drop in the working age population?

Estimates from the Census Bureau, showed that the U.S. population, ages 16 through 64 fell 0.1% in 2020 - a scant drop, but the first decline of any kind, after decades of steady increases. It reflected a sharp fall in immigration, the retirements of the vast baby boom generation [the number of people ages 65 and over will likely jump 30% over the next decade], and a slowing birth rate.
The size of the 16-64 age group was also diminished last year, by thousands of deaths from the coronavirus.
A year earlier, in 2019, the working age population had essentially plateaued.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Could it be that the shrinking working population, coincides with the drop in the working age population?

Estimates from the Census Bureau, showed that the U.S. population, ages 16 through 64 fell 0.1% in 2020 - a scant drop, but the first decline of any kind, after decades of steady increases. It reflected a sharp fall in immigration, the retirements of the vast baby boom generation [the number of people ages 65 and over will likely jump 30% over the next decade], and a slowing birth rate.
The size of the 16-64 age group was also diminished last year, by thousands of deaths from the coronavirus.
A year earlier, in 2019, the working age population had essentially plateaued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ns-unemployed/

.....

To be considered officially unemployed, someone must have searched for a job within the past month.

.....


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...pationrate.asp

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

We are regularly told large swaths of the population can't afford a $500 car break down...I seriously doubt they are choosing not to work because the wages don't meet the demands of the job.

"Americans are quitting their jobs in record numbers — more than 4 million each month since July — but much of that quitting is happening among young people who are leaving for other jobs or better pay. They're not leaving the workforce entirely.
"Part of it is a job quality shortage," says Sojourner. "It's a bit of a puzzle why employers aren't raising wages and improving working conditions fast enough to draw people back in. They say they want to hire people — there are 11 million job openings — but they're not creating job openings that people want."
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell underscored that issue during a news conference on Wednesday.
"There's a demographic trend underlying all of this... The question of how much we can get back is a good one, and what we can do is try to create the conditions," that allow people to come back, he said.
To be sure, some companies have been raising wages to attract and retain staff. Some businesses also offer signing bonuses to get workers in the door. But economists aren't sure whether these incentives are here to stay and will improve conditions for workers in the long term.
"I can want a 65-inch TV for $50, but it doesn't mean there's a TV shortage, it means I'm not willing to pay enough to get somebody to sell me a TV," said Sojourner."


(Bolding mine)

So is this what free market looks like? I mean just because leverage is skewing towards employees at this time, isn't it still considered free market forces? This is in spite of decades of policy written into laws that favored buisness. And not many of those laws have really changed in the past 2 years. Legislation certainly crawls at a snails pace. It's just that there was an unprecedented pandemic that forced change. Along with unprecedented social change globally and regionally. I honestly can't remember a time when employees last had any leverage.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

A large part of those who still have not come back are early retirees...with all the free money, limited opportunities to spend and a pumped up market, if you were in a good position prior to the pandemic, you are probably up 30-50% over the last 2yrs advancing your ability to retire by a few years. Short of a market collapse driving them back to the workforce, we are probably looking at 5-6yrs for labor force to get back to equilibrium.

"Nearly 70% of the 5 million people who left the labor force during the pandemic are older than 55, according to researchers from Goldman Sachs, and many of them aren't looking to return."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/econo...ion/index.html

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

"Americans are quitting their jobs in record numbers — more than 4 million each month since July — but much of that quitting is happening among young people who are leaving for other jobs or better pay. They're not leaving the workforce entirely.
"Part of it is a job quality shortage," says Sojourner. "It's a bit of a puzzle why employers aren't raising wages and improving working conditions fast enough to draw people back in. They say they want to hire people — there are 11 million job openings — but they're not creating job openings that people want."
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell underscored that issue during a news conference on Wednesday.
"There's a demographic trend underlying all of this... The question of how much we can get back is a good one, and what we can do is try to create the conditions," that allow people to come back, he said.
To be sure, some companies have been raising wages to attract and retain staff. Some businesses also offer signing bonuses to get workers in the door. But economists aren't sure whether these incentives are here to stay and will improve conditions for workers in the long term.
"I can want a 65-inch TV for $50, but it doesn't mean there's a TV shortage, it means I'm not willing to pay enough to get somebody to sell me a TV," said Sojourner."


(Bolding mine)

So is this what free market looks like? I mean just because leverage is skewing towards employees at this time, isn't it still considered free market forces? This is in spite of decades of policy written into laws that favored buisness. And not many of those laws have really changed in the past 2 years. Legislation certainly crawls at a snails pace. It's just that there was an unprecedented pandemic that forced change. Along with unprecedented social change globally and regionally. I honestly can't remember a time when employees last had any leverage.




"Nearly 70% of the 5 million people who left the labor force during the pandemic are older than 55, according to researchers from Goldman Sachs, and many of them aren't looking to return."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/econo...ion/index.html

This is exactly what the free market looks like!

[Gadagirl]

Exactly. But i imagine that many lobbyists will make great money this year and policies will again be written to claw back any financial or bennifits gain made by employees this past year.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

"Americans are quitting their jobs in record numbers — more than 4 million each month since July — but much of that quitting is happening among young people who are leaving for other jobs or better pay. They're not leaving the workforce entirely.
"Part of it is a job quality shortage," says Sojourner. "It's a bit of a puzzle why employers aren't raising wages and improving working conditions fast enough to draw people back in. They say they want to hire people — there are 11 million job openings — but they're not creating job openings that people want."

If they are moving from 1 job to another, they wouldn't show up as a shortage. And I do believe that is happening but it should not result in a shortage across the labor market.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

Exactly. But i imagine that many lobbyists will make great money this year and policies will again be written to claw back any financial or bennifits gain made by employees this past year.

Just departed Turkey. It's wild west economy. While it was great for us as everything was dirt cheap, for the locals it's a sh it show.

They are doing it in reverse:
- The Lira has fell by 50% this year and official inflation is up around 27% (reality is likely much higher).
- They just instituted a 50% increase in the minimum wage for 2022. 40% of employees make minimum wage (currently equivalent to about $180USD/month)

Anyone care to guess how that will work out.

[wolfgal]

great discussions here. there are few points i'd like to bring to the table. if i get something wrong, please be nice about it:


-the ultra rich do not or barely pay any taxes. Buffet once said he pays about the same amount of taxes as his secretary.

how do they get so rich? instead of getting paid wages/salaries, these clever few (like musk and bezo) opt to be paid in shares. they sit on these shares and borrow money against them for cash. as long as they do not sell the shares, they owe no capital gains (about 20% anyway as compared to 37% taxation for wages). then when they die, their wealth is given to their heirs who do not have to pay taxes on it either...


does anyone else see the correlation to feudalism?


-US policies in the 80's gave companies financial incentives to big companies to take jobs abroad, which resulted in the hollowing out the manufacturing base. at the same time, unions were more or less dismantled. this came about when the boomers (a surge in demographics following WWII) were already in stiff competition with one another for jobs.

-wages in REAL terms haven't increased in decades. in fact, many have even fallen as a result of offshoring jobs and/or using services provided abroad (a small example of how this can hurt: i went from making 43 euros a page to 13 euros a page in 20005 when i found myself competing with translators in india. and the french, who opted for the cheaper translation service,s couldn't tell if the texts were translated well anyhow...)

-inflation is the poor man's tax. these days folks are paying a whole lot more in terms of TIME-spent-WORKING for everyday existence

and inflation is the easiest/most effective way for an over-indebted country to service their debts and avoid defaulting.


getting back to the ultra-wealthy... this is my own idea (so it is not like i claim to know anything about anything. i'm merely showing out my thoughts):

if we allow people to opt to be paid for work in SHARES and not WAGES, their wealth will continue to increase and they will continue to profit from the advantages that come with borrowing (and for a while now, at super low interest rates).

could we make the playing field a bit more fair and mandate that their salaries cannot be paid in SHARES but in WAGES, i.e. the funny-money that all the rest of us have to manage?

just a thought

wolfie