| ▲ | vannevar 2 hours ago |
| This is consistent with the observation that the top 10% have captured a disproportionate share of GDP growth over the past few decades. https://equitablegrowth.org/new-data-reveal-how-u-s-economic... "The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion." |
|
| ▲ | u1hcw9nx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Also note: Labor share has declined similarly across OECD countries for several decades. Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share. |
| |
| ▲ | stymaar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share. I highly doubt automation and robots are a meaningful factor here, but IP and outsourcing have the exact same as automation. | | |
| ▲ | boelboel an hour ago | parent [-] | | New factories use very few people, part of the reason why it's difficult for many countries to industrialize like South Korea or China did (climbing manufacturing ladder). |
| |
| ▲ | stretchwithme an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Employee compensation comes from capital. And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc. There's a return on capital than is not spent on employees. That reflects how much capital is growing and how much can be spent on employees in the future. | | |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Employee compensation comes from capital. All human collective endeavors (with few exceptions) require 3 kinds of human-related input: capital, labor and ideas. Nobody puts their capital into an endeavor in which the plan is for the that capital to provide renumeration for the labor for more than the shortest possible time (). The goal is always to generate revenue in sufficient volume to pay for the labor, and when that goal is met, that success is a function of all 3 kinds of contribution. So no, employee compensation does not come from capital, but from revenue that results from the successful interaction of capital, labor and ideas. () non-profits would be an obvious exception, except that nobody actually talks about investing capital in such organizations, we just make "donations" or "grants". That money plays the same role as capital, however. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | didgetmaster an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Every discussion about the 'top 10%' seems to make the underlying assumption that the set of people who fall under that category are consistent. While there are certainly individuals who enter the top 10% (or top 1%) and stay there; there are large numbers of people who move in and out of those categories. For me personally, I am in the top 10%; but a few decades ago, I was not. |
| |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The statistical evidence for your claim is not good. There is certainly a generational effect in that 5 year olds are typically not in the upper decile, simply because they generally have little to no individual wealth or income. But in the USA at least, most people die in the same decile they were born into. | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is bourgeois idealism. In reality, the people in the top 10% remain there and rarely fall | |
| ▲ | jhoechtl 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a good point I haven't considered in the past and worth to take into the overall discussion. | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | cherryteastain 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Top 10%" is such a misleading slice here. The guy who's at the 9.99th percentile is a normal salaried worker not doing better. The gains are entirely concentrated in the tiny billionaire slice buried inside that 10%. In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom deciles [1]. Incomes still grow fast in the top decile, but mostly due to assets. And those assets are disproportionately in the hands of the billionaire slice of that top decile. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/strong-wage-growth-for-low-w... |
|
| ▲ | vondur an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Aren't most of the tech workers here part of that 10% and I'd assume they own houses in some of the most expensive areas, so they are technically part of the capital class? |
| |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Being a part of the "capital class" does not mean simply having passed a net worth threshold. It means having sufficient liquid capital that you can invest it in uncertain outcomes, generally without fear of poverty or perhaps any real negative effects on one's life at all. Owning a very expensive home in a very high cost-of-living place (or even in a not-so-high cost-of-living place) does not place a person in that position. | |
| ▲ | tancop 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | defining classes is complicated. if you do it based on income percentile it will always be arbitrary and never reflect actual economic relations. the most accepted way to divide in socialist circles is based off where your income comes from, your relation to capital. if you have to work for someone else thats working class (proletariat), if you can be independent you are professional or middle class, if you own the means of production for others that makes you a capitalist. owning a house is only capital class if you rent it out. from that pov almost all tech workers are professional or working class. with founder ceos its more complicated because they own capital but also work for themselves through their company so you can take them as either. i guess it depends on if you like that person. | | |
|
