I force myself to spend time with my kids because of all the older people who say that they wish they had spent more time with their kids when they were younger. Many people I know who use work as an escape from family don't force themselves to spend time with their kids, and in 15 years I'll tell you who is happier...
Do you believe that labor is a market that does not generally behave like other markets in terms of supply and demand for price discovery? Do you believe that immigration did not increase supply by more than it increased demand? I’m trying to tease apart and understand your certainty that there is no downward pressure on wages from immigration.
You might believe that it will catch up at some point, but no body think this will take less than a few generations.
Who benefits in the meantime? The largest corporations, the ones whose size is only limited by the size of the country. So not your local restaurant.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
While the issue is still hotly debated, the biggest causes for inequality and wage stagnation since the 1980s in order of impact is: skill-biased technological change (tech favoring skilled workers and amplifying their output, network effects, winner take all economics), globalization and offshoring, and China.
For comparison, the rise of China alone is believed to account for the loss of 20%+ of the manufacturing sector. Income taxes across the board are inequality decreasing in their effect.
I agree that more distribution is better for societal welfare, but “not taxing the rich enough” isn’t the cause of inequality
> For comparison, the rise of China alone is believed to account for the loss of 20%+ of the manufacturing sector. Income taxes across the board are inequality decreasing in their effect
This narrative comes from people who have no understanding of manufacturing and don't take the time to check their predictions. An incredibly simple test is checking if decreases in american manufacturing employment coincide with increases in chinese and other overseas production (hint: they don't) or if american production decreased at the same imports grew (they didn't).
The main factor in manufacturing has been process changes which have dramatically increased worker productivity. For example, in 1920 it took 3 man-hours to produce 1 ton of steel in the US, now in the US 1 man hour produces 300 tons. And the improved productivity was not limited to developed countries with expensive labor markets - comparable changes were seen in countries like brazil and south africa over the same period.
People imagine such technological changes to be things like robots and machinery automating low skill tasks, and it's easy enough to see that's not happening. However people rarely appreciate where the real cost is in manufacturing. Take for example a plastic extruder: it takes a whole team of skilled people to get it started up, but a single unskilled person can easily operate it while it is running. Simple changes that allow you to run that extruder for longer without stopping, such as switching shift times and online maintenance, significantly reduce labor requirements even though no tasks are being automated.
The fact is americans are producing more, but they're not being compensated more. There aren't immigrants, foreigners, or robots doing the jobs cheaper, the jobs simply aren't being done because they are unnecessary now. Really, the issue is that the costs of these goods and services which are now so much easier to produce should have fallen but didn't (despite that 1000 fold increase in steel production per unit of labor, inflation adjusted the price of steel has remained constant over the same time period).
Like I said: skill-biased tech change is the biggest factor by far, but China dominating manufacturing apart from those technological changes has had a major impact as well.
see: h1b visas and ultra pro immigration silicon valley companies
If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone around 100k.
We could do this exactly once, and it would destroy enough wealth (most of this money is in assets, whose value would be destroyed in the process) that the real value you'd get out of that number would be A LOT less.
The rich are not the source of the working man's problems no matter how many times it gets repeated. People are payed based on supply and demand. Supply and demand is a byproduct of private property. If you like owning things, you're stuck with capitalism and supply and demand.
If we take everything from everyone worth 2 million or more, and distribute it at 10% a year, that's still only 10k a year extra.
This clearly won't destroy the value of Tesla since they will continue making cars. They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla, and they will continue after Elon leaves Tesla.
Musk became CEO of Tesla in Oct 2008.
As of Sept 10, 2008, Tesla had delivered 27 cars to customers.
That's about as "technically correct and practically wrong" as I've seen.
I wouldn't trust a company cutting so many corners. Recent recall is another example.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insigh...
So, while it's technically absolutely true that "they sold cars before Elon joined", it's a literal rounding error.
Perhaps things differ outside of software circles, but at least here this isn't true. People used to have larger families on much lower incomes. It is that with do much opportunity now, the opportunity cost of having kids keeps increasing.
“Trigger warning”
This is my experience from my wife, our friends, and my community & family. But it might provide some insight.
90% of women I speak to would love not to work and would like to raise kids (most men too). It’s more about the wage gap. Most of the people I speak with believe (and I agree) believe the lack of wage growth (since 1970-ish) was created by offshoring jobs and illegal immigration that drive down wages to the point both members of the household have to work. Further exasperating the issue is the prison times and the push for “independence”, which leaves many single women.
Everyone my wife and I grew up with had both (or one) parent working - none seemed happy. The happiest and smartest people I know have / are stay at home moms.