Comment by elmomle
4 days ago
That's a highly idealized view that I hope we can agree doesn't completely jive with what we see in society today. If a small number of shareholders reap all the profits, the vast majority of the benefit from automation flows to them, and it's even possible for the lives of average people to get worse as automation increases, as average people then have less leverage over those who own the companies.
Inflation adjusted incomes are up in the US across the board. The affordability problem is largely the price of housing because it's illegal to build.
Incomes are up, but the expenses are up as well, especially with the upcoming changes in healthcare for people on the ACA.
Also any comparison of wage growth vs corporate profit growth over the last 30 years shows that wages have not kept pace with the increase in productivity.
So incomes are only just barely keeping up, when they should be booming.
How can inflation adjusted income be up and there still be an affordability crisis?
Housing is not part of the inflation calculation. There IS a housing inflation crisis.
Household income is more than just wages. Household income can go up while wages remain stagnant or shrinking because other pieces of the pie are increasing (e.g. work benefits, investments, money from the government). https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/09/sources-of-household...
The price of housing can rise even faster than incomes.
Housing is only a part of the basket used to measure inflation. Housing's price rose faster than the weighted basket average, some other goods and services rose slower or even fell.
5 replies →
Inflation also corrodes your savings and investments.
Yet more and more people are struggling to afford even basic necessities and one can only dream of the luxury of the 50's when a single working class person was able to pay and cover for housing, car, family and even have enough for leisure. Where has all the economic surplus gone? Right...to the bourgeois, the capital owning class that exceedingly extract more and more of the wealth generated by the society.
because the developing world is producing a lot of things except the housing.
They also don't produce haircuts.
On average, most large cap stocks (MSFT, GOOG, AAPL, etc) are owned by millions of retail investors through 401Ks, mutual funds, ETFs, and direct ownership.
Median net worth at 40 years old in the US is less than 150k. Most Americans benefit very little from share prices rising, at least directly.
Of the US stock market half is owned by 1%.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01122
Actually I believe this graph is half of US-owned equities and mutual funds is owned by the top 1% of Americans right? This doesn't include other extremely large holders such as sovreign wealth funds like norway/singapore or very large pension funds like the ontario teachers fund etc....
The USA is rather unique in its low pensions compared to countries in the EU or Australia (notable for its high contribution rates).
Tech founders (part of the 1%) own about 2% of the stock market.
About 18% is owned by foreign entities.
> If a small number of shareholders reap all the profits
It's not greater profits but lower costs (and prices) that matter here.
Lower costs only translate into lower prices if sufficient competition is there. That is not true for many markets
That’s the big difference in China. When there is competition for everything —> prices are low. Not a lot of profits for investors, though…
Which markets do you have in mind?
I'm all in favour of lowering barriers to entry, too. We need more competition.
Be that from startups, from foreign companies (like from China), or from companies in other sectors branching out (eg Walmart letting you open bank accounts).
Untrue, most of the time. Even with a monopoly, there's still a demand curve.
Would you rather sell one widget for $1000 or 1000 widgets for $10? Does the answer depend on costs?
The ROI for a large corporation tends to be around 10%.
Everybody can be a shareholder in a publicly traded company. It's pretty easy.
If you want to spin up some conspiracy theory about elites snatching up productivity gains, you should focus on top managers.
(Though honestly, it's mostly just land. The share of GDP going to capital has been roughly steady over the decade. The share going to land has increased slightly at the cost of the labour share.
The labour share itself has seen some shake up in its distribution. But that doesn't involve shareholders.)
Everyone with excess disposable income can be a shareholder in a publicly traded company.
The oligarchy of the CxOs and boards and cross-pollination has led to concentration of the rewards of companies into the their hands, compared to 40 years ago.
All the productivity gains have not gone to labor, its predominately gone to equity and then extracted via options and buy backs to avoid tax which means public service and investment has gone down.
The craziness of the USG borrowing to fund tax cuts is the ultimate example.
> All the productivity gains have not gone to labor, its predominately gone to equity [...]
What your evidence for that? See https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_r... for a good account.
> [...] and then extracted via options and buy backs to avoid tax which means public service and investment has gone down.
You seem very confused about how capital markets work. Are you also suggesting buy backs are morally different from dividends?
In any case, the whole point of investing (at least to the investor) is to eventually get more money back than you put in. Returning money to investor is not a bug, it's the point.
> The craziness of the USG borrowing to fund tax cuts is the ultimate example.
Blame voters.