1073

submitted 9 months ago by j_roby@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] jelloeater85@lemmy.world 68 points 9 months ago

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[-] bort@feddit.de 40 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Sanity_in_Moderation@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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.

[-] psud@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think there's some hints.

Administration costs have risen, food quality has gone down*
Everything has become market based, inflation is built in and required in modern market stability models
The very wealthy have learnt to extract more of the value share
Residential land in good places is now scarce and so expensive, where it was abundant and cheap back then (because population has increased)

They seem to think Bitcoin would fix it, but Bitcoin is in the market, and is more volatile than cash

They seem to think gold has stable and intrinsic value

Of course what happened then was computers, they are the biggest productivity multiplier since the wheel, and I wonder, do we the workers deserve that share of our productivity that was provided by our employers' computers?

*That's contentious, some people think food quality has gone up, despite obesity rates now vs 1972

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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.

[-] lledrtx@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 8 points 9 months ago

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

Shortage of guillotines.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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.

[-] Shadywack@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months 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.