This article is certainly an interesting read, but it seems like the only idea proposed is a higher minimum wage, the results of which seem to be mixed (<a href="https://grow.acorns.com/how-seattles-minimum-wage-has-changed-the-city/" rel="nofollow">https://grow.acorns.com/how-seattles-minimum-wage-has-change...</a>, <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/13/20690266/seattle-minimum-wage-15-dollars" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/13/20690266/seattle...</a>, <a href="https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2303-effects-of-the-15-minimum-wage-in-seattle" rel="nofollow">https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2303-effect...</a>). From what I've read, the academic study that paints the best possible picture says that for a 10% increase in the minimum wage, Seattle saw a 1% increase in wages (one would presumably expect a 10% increase in total wages, unless there was a decrease in total hours worked). There are partisan arguments for and against raising the minimum wage (which the author does a good job of summarizing), but from reading those studies it seems not obvious what raising the minimum wage will do at the macro level.
from an AMZN early investor. the company that pays the lowest wages and creates the greatest wage disparities ever seen.<p>great example of why the pitchforks are overdue. Even the rich who can see the writing on the wall are too greedy to do anything other than virtue signaling.
He and his team at Civic Ventures have a podcast called Pitchfork Economics which is worth listening to:<p><a href="https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episodes/" rel="nofollow">https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episodes/</a>
> One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning.<p>Almost prophetic to today's events. It's gonna be a real rough ride once the masses that are currently focused on the murder of George Floyd and countless other PoC expand their view and take aim on the systemic issues that plague many Western societies.<p>> These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.<p>Yup. I'm German, our car manufacturers have had the problem for years now that the only place they can grow and sell cars is China or some other export target. But well, that's the result of having:<p>- about the biggest low-wage sector in whole Europe<p>- 2/3rds of the population with either no meaningful savings at all or in debts (<a href="https://www.boeckler.de/de/boeckler-impuls-vermoegen-nur-jeder-dritte-hat-reserven-6400.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.boeckler.de/de/boeckler-impuls-vermoegen-nur-jed...</a>)<p>- and cars that cost tens of thousands of dollars in new<p>How is the German economy supposed to "pull itself out of the recession on the bootstraps" when the majority of the population does not have bootstraps?
There’s no problem with capitalism.<p>The problem is rich people aren’t willing to share the wealth with less fortunate.<p>Socialism is a dirty word in the USA but it’s really just about taking care of everyone. Rich people - to generalize - aren’t ok with people getting free or minimal cost health care education housing and a financial safety net. But in general terms the rich fight against this.<p>People get mad when you .... the rich... can have houses and cars and holidays and all the good things, but no one fights to ensure the less fortunate can own houses, that they aren’t bankrupted when they get sick, that they don’t have to work till they’re 78 even assuming they can get work.<p>That’s why the pitchforks will one day come. Because the rich want all for us, none for you.
The ford story is a myth. A fairy tale told by investors to their children whom they want to grow up to become successful venture capitalists. He raised wages to:<p>* Deal with worker turnover (Jeff Bezos did this too)<p>* Gain more social control over his workers (he had a thing for good/clean/christian/nuclear family living and he wanted a remuneration policy that would let him enforce that).<p>* To poke some of his shareholders in the eye (whom he'd had fallings out with).<p>* Pour cold water over incipient unionization (Jeff Bezos also did this one recently).<p>The oft repeated idea that our media likes to promulgate that it was a grand, magnanimous gesture done for selfless reasons (by a virulent antisemite no less) is not only untrue, it's the exact opposite of true - there had to be four <i>really</i> solid reasons to jack up wages before Henry Ford had his arm twisted into doing it.
> But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day.<p>As long as people keep getting this so badly wrong the problem, whatever it is, is never going to be fixed. Really I just call on people to stop using the wrong language and try to articulate detectable problems.<p>If you look out the window of your car (or house) and see homeless people (or mobs) - that isn't inequality. If all the homeless people had houses or all the mobers a comfortable life, the amount of inequality would be about the same as it is now. Inequality as measured is all but undetectable in the real world. I have no idea how unequal I am to the people who I see every day - and none of my readers on HN do either unless they've spent a few hours poring over some very dry statistical compendiums.<p>The problem is much more likely that the link between productive work and reward has been completely severed for more than 40 years [0]. If being productive reliably led to being rewarded there would be many less problems. The people being rewarded aren't the people who are producing results. Go look at the late 60s and early 70s to figure out what changed.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/" rel="nofollow">https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/</a>