Posts Tagged ‘workers’


Special mention



I’m taking nominations for the best examples of dismal economic scientists.

While I wait for your suggestions, I’m going to offer two of my own nominations: Tyler Cowen and Paul Romer.

I am nominating Cowen because, in his argument that the economy probably needs a “reset,” he only focuses on lowering workers’ wages. First, he makes no mention of resetting corporate profits or the incomes of those at the very top, as if what they manage to capture were completely off limits. All the adjustment in the new, “grimmer future” will be born by those at the bottom. Second, he completely overlooks the mechanisms of his own economic theory: if lower rates of economic growth are the product of lower rates of growth of available workers (a key factor in the theory of secular stagnation), then the relative scarcity of workers should mean higher—not lower—wages. In other words, Cowen is determined to make sure all the costs of the new, slower-growing economy will be born by shifted onto those who can least afford it. For that reason, I nominate Cowen for the title of dismal economist.

I also want to nominate Romer, who continues to double down on his “mathiness” argument, by asserting (against all the work that has taken place in the philosophy of science in recent decades) that (a) there’s a single truth, (b) that truth can only be obtained via science, and (c) mathematical modeling is the singular method for making progress in science to obtain truth. There are so many things wrong with each of those assertions it’s hard to know where to begin. And I won’t, at least right now. Let me just say Romer deserves his nomination as one of the most dismal economists because of the extraordinary arrogance, pretentiousness, and ignorance of the following statements:

About math:. . .I’ve seen clear evidence that math can facilitate scientific progress toward the truth.

If you think that math is worthless or dangerous, I’m sure that there are people who will be happy to discuss this with you. I’m not interested. I’m busy.

About truth and science: My fundamental premise is that there is an objective notion of truth and that science can help us make progress toward truth.

If you do not accept this premise, I’m sure that there are people who would be happy to debate it with you. I’m not interested. I’m busy.

And please do not write to tell me that science is a social process or that the progress it makes toward the truth can be irregular. I know.

Me, I’m not too busy to discuss either the fundamental injustices of contemporary capitalism or the often-worthless and dangerous role mathematics, truth, and science have played and continue to play in the discipline of economics.

I’m also not too busy to post additional nominations for dismal economists.


Special mention

www.usnews RogerR20150517_low


As Andrew Flowers reports,

If it seems like big business is getting bigger, it is. Over the last two decades, the largest U.S. companies have grown faster than the economy as a whole. And it’s the biggest of big businesses that are making up a larger and larger share of the growth.

By the same token, perhaps it’s time to start worrying about the downwardly rigid prices of increasingly large corporations (and the upwardly rigid wages they pay to their employees), instead of the downwardly rigid wages that have been so much the focus in recent years.

That Reminds Me

Special mention

TlJPF.AuSt.79 163847_600

Is Dan Price [ht:sm], the founder and CEO of Gravity Payments who raised the salaries of his employees and slashed his own pay, a socialist hero?

Well, no. Not really. Price certainly doesn’t think so. And, in the end, he—not Gravity’s employees as a group—is the one who decided what the new pay scheme would look like. He is the one who took the decision to distribute some of the surplus produced by his workers back to them in the form of higher wages and to take a smaller amount of that surplus in his compensation.

But I do like the fact that the two KTVB interviewers, Dee Sarton and Carolyn Holly, are clearly taken with Dan Price and his decision—which presumably stand in sharp contrast to all the other CEOs they’ve been forced to interview over the years.

Even more, Price’s decision proves once again (as I argued back in 2013) that “capitalists do lots of different things.”

They do make profits (at least sometimes, but over what timeframe are they supposedly maximizing those profits?). But they don’t follow any single rule. They also seek to grow their enterprises and destroy the competition and maintain good public relations and buy government officials and reward their CEOs and squeeze workers and lower costs and build factories that collapse and. . .well, you get the idea. In other words, they appropriate and distribute surplus-value in all kinds of ways depending on the particular conditions and struggles that take place over the shape and direction of their enterprises.

So, I’m not prepared to celebrate Price as a “good capitalist,” as against all the “bad capitalists” who are choosing to increase the gap between average workers’ pay and the enormous payments to CEOs.

My point is a actually somewhat different: first, that capitalists—whether in Columbus or Seattle—do lots of different things, and presuming they follow a simple rule (whether profit-maximization as in the usual neoclassical story, or the accumulation of capital in many heterodox stories) means missing out on the complex, contradictory dynamics of capitalist enterprises; and second, that other kinds of enterprises (in which workers themselves make the decisions about how the surplus is appropriated and distributed) would do even more, on a wider scale, to transform the dynamics of the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S. economy.

IN-Russell IN-S&P

According to the AFL-CIO Corporate Pay Watch, in the state of Indiana, the 2014 CEO to average worker’s pay ratio was 101:1 (for corporations in the Russell 3000) and 306:1 (for corporations in the S&P 500).

In the nation as a whole, the ratio (for corporations in the S&P 500) was 373:1, which surpassed the ratio for 2013 (331:1)—both of which were much, much higher than the ratio in 1980 (42:1).

The average CEO compensation of Russell 3000 companies in 2014 was $5,504,432. As it turns out, the industry with the highest CEO pay was Tobacco Products ($13,061,671), followed by Railroad Transportation ($12,526,083), Petroleum Refining ($12,502,981), Communications ($10,769,054), and Hotels ($10,058,029).

As for the Security and Commodity Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges, and Services industry (where financial institutions like Goldman Sachs are located), the average CEO pay was “only” $8,102,970—ranging from $105,295 (for Joe Mansueto of Morningstar) to $88,518,411 (for Mario J. Gabelli of Gamco Investors, Inc.).

Clearly, a large portion of the surplus workers create ends up in the pockets (and portfolios) of the CEOs of the nation’s largest corporations.