[B0ycey]

That's the old system @B0ycey , automation, smartphones and the internet has led most people to do the stockbrokers work sussing out the Charts and whatnot themselves. As a result most major stockbrokers basically just do the trade for you these days. No point ringing you to pressure you to buy shitty stocks any more.

Sounds to me that is the same argument about cashiers being used on here @colliric. They are becoming obsolete. Although there is more to a shopfloor workers role than just working on a till. We maybe seeing more self serving tills but I don't see many robots filling the shelves.

[Pants-of-dog]

Money is needed to buy food.... Stockbroker is useful to help you get it, in addition to a job and other investments.

I get money without any help from stockbrokers. They are completely unnecessary to me.

Cashiers, on the other hand, are necessary ifI want to buy food.

Note that stockbrokers were not designated essential workers.

Not true at all. Cashier is such a low-skill job that I go to Walmart all the time and put my food through the self-checkout. I don't need a cashier at all. I literally learned to do the cashier's job in 30 seconds. Cashiers are enormously expendable and replaceable. Not true with finance. The best cashier in the world can't compete with Warren Buffett, who is a genius.

If there were no investors the economy would collapse. If investors weren't allowed to de their job during COVID the economy would have been decimated and many more people would have lost their jobs. They are essential workers who can thankfully work from home so were allowed to work throughout COVID.

The Soviets and Maoists thought a bunch of government bureaucrats could do as good a job at allocating capital as private investors. They can't.

See above.

The fact that the cashier does not need specialised skills in order to be necessary does not change the fact that they are necessary while the stockbroker is not.

[wat0n]

You don't need cashiers if you order online, or go and use a self-service checkout.

Now, the ones that are not replaceable are the delivery and logistics workers, at least until that becomes automated - which will likely take several years.

Stockbrokers are also being replaced as @colliric. Trading has also become automated, which has of course led to having less traders around than 20 or so years ago. The traders that do and will exist for the time being will be in charge of managing the infrastructure that does the trading for you (this is also why Reddit trolls will not be taking over algorithmic traders anytime soon).

[Julian658]

Do you know what I mean by hog the money? They want to possess all the money in the market BY ANY MEANS. I am talking about current activity, not the activity of their ancestors. Some rich would love to create monopolies in the market or control the major commodities in the ENTIRE world. They approve of price gouging, tax cuts for the wealthy while taxes increase for middle and lower class. They approve of insider trading, money laundering, cheating others to get richer, etc.

Those who did not work for the money...some are disabled and really need help. Do you know about people with special needs? No, you do not. They are incapable of working full time and they cannot live on their own. But they still need income to live. Dignity is not something connected to money. Dignity is an innate quality people have, like pride. The poor can have dignity if they know they are honest and they have a clear conscience.

The government can try to break up big businesses so there is more competition in the market, and therefore prices for commodities will decrease. Lower prices are better for the people. And you have more smaller businesses in the world. People lose jobs due to mergers.

I do not disagree with you, but I want to explain the concept of "lots of money creates more opportunities to make more money" even with people that are not greedy.

If I a person has one million dollars cash he or she can invest the money at a 8% return and have 2.2 million in 10 years if interest is compounded monthly. This is a very passive non-greedy way to make money.

This is called the Matthew Effect. Look it up.

If you save 500 a month for 30 years you end up with 750K assuming 8% interest. Many people sacrifice and do this. They are not necessarily bad people.

[Rancid]

Wealth tax is a bad idea. Learn form Europe, they are running away from it.

[Unthinking Majority]

Wow. What a load of BS. A stockbroker makes money for their firm. A bank lends money for profit with interest for a company to invest and expand. They are not necessarily exclusive. Wall Street is full of sharks that do nothing useful for society and infact their practices can be bad for society given 2008 and Lehman brothers. The scary thing is that you believe what you wrote despite it being soooooo wrong!

So banks don't provide a useful service? Nobody would have a house if banks didn't lend money via mortgages. Stock brokers provide a service to help people invest, save for retirement etc. These entities are often selfish and greedy. Doesn't mean they don't provide value, because if they didn't they would be out of business. It just means people need to read the contracts they're signing and the gov needs to regulate the industry as they do many others.

Now compare that to someone who works in a job that feeds you. You can do without excess wealth. You can't do without eating and drinking. They are not the same. One job is actually important for society and the other is not. Yet wages between the two are different. So society should address that if the free market does not.

Value in the market is determined by supply and demand. The supply of people who have the skills to be a cashier are far higher than the supply of people who can work as a stock broker. That's why a cashier can't negotiate for higher pay. That's why if every cashier was fired tomorrow it would be very easy to replace them, because anyone can do that job. Just because a certain job is needed for society to run doesn't make them valuable.

You want to determine wages by subjective emotion and your subjective sense of morality. The economy doesn't care about your subjective valuations that you pull out your butt.

[Unthinking Majority]

Note that stockbrokers were not designated essential workers.

They would be if they couldn't work from home.

[Rugoz]

I haven't seen anyone properly defend the French experience. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

I can only find one decent paper on the topic:
Estimating the Economic Impacts of Wealth Taxation in France
https://www.econ.berkeley.edu/sites/def ... _Final.pdf
It concludes that the French wealth tax had no significant effect on growth and a modest short-term negative effect on the saving rate (-1%).

Let me know if you find anything better.

Besides, here's the paper making the case for the superior efficiency of the wealth tax.
Use It or Lose It: Efficiency Gains from Wealth Taxation
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp764.pdf
The basic intuition is trivial. Is is always more efficient to tax according to potential than outcome.

Wealth tax is a bad idea. Learn form Europe, they are running away from it.

Plenty of economists disagree.

[B0ycey]

So banks don't provide a useful service?

Weren't we discussing stockbrokers?

Value in the market is determined by supply and demand. The supply of people who have the skills to be a cashier are far higher than the supply of people who can work as a stock broker. That's why a cashier can't negotiate for higher pay. That's why if every cashier was fired tomorrow it would be very easy to replace them, because anyone can do that job. Just because a certain job is needed for society to run doesn't make them valuable.

You are now just moving the goal posts because your argument is weak. What has skill level or labor force got to do with whether or not a job is essential? Shopfloor workers contribute to society. Significantly more than stockbrokers who have a knack of destroying society. If the free market doesn't cater to that in a fair way, it is up to the state to rectify that. Hence tax and hence subsidies. And if the system fails the bourgeois lose out as the power in every society is in numbers.

[Pants-of-dog]

So banks don't provide a useful service? Nobody would have a house if banks didn't lend money via mortgages. Stock brokers provide a service to help people invest, save for retirement etc. These entities are often selfish and greedy. Doesn't mean they don't provide value, because if they didn't they would be out of business. It just means people need to read the contracts they're signing and the gov needs to regulate the industry as they do many others.

Yes, stockbrokers provide a service, which the rich value.

This job is not universally valued or universally necessary. It serves only a specific target market that has large amounts of disposable income. Like fashion photographers, or psychologists for pets.

Cashiers at supermarkets, on the other hand, serve everyone in a way that makes it possible for us to eat, It is universally necessary.

Value in the market is determined by supply and demand.

Yes and no; that is overly simplistic. Other things like risk, target markets, experience, location, and social capital also impact value.

The supply of people who have the skills to be a cashier are far higher than the supply of people who can work as a stock broker. That's why a cashier can't negotiate for higher pay. That's why if every cashier was fired tomorrow it would be very easy to replace them, because anyone can do that job.

Drug dealers and garbage collectors also require no special skills. Why do they make more money?

Just because a certain job is needed for society to run doesn't make them valuable.

Yes and no. Value is a subjective reaction. Sewer workers and janitors are objectively important and essential for saving lives in terms of disease. The fact that most people do not value them (i.e. have a subjective reaction that is logically consistent with the objectively verifiable fact that these people save lives) does not make them less worthy of value.

You want to determine wages by subjective emotion and your subjective sense of morality. The economy doesn't care about your subjective valuations that you pull out your butt.

Lol.

They would be if they couldn't work from home.

Unverifiable speculation is not an argument.

[wat0n]

I can only find one decent paper on the topic:
Estimating the Economic Impacts of Wealth Taxation in France
https://www.econ.berkeley.edu/sites/def ... _Final.pdf
It concludes that the French wealth tax had no significant effect on growth and a modest short-term negative effect on the saving rate (-1%).

Let me know if you find anything better.

That's not particularly great, why didn't he include as many countries as possible as candidates for the synth control? And why doesn't he show what happened up to 2019, when the ISF was repealed? Where are the revenue estimates which also allow us to see if the tax is useful as a major revenue source as has been sold recently in the US? What happened to inequality? So far, I've never learned of any accounts saying the wealth tax was effective as a revenue source or as a device to reduce inequality.

To me, it sounds like a wealth tax would, at best, be a major waste of time rife with evasion/avoidance depending on the tax rate and little tax revenue to offer and little effect on inequality, which are its two major selling points. At worst, the evasion/avoidance could take the form of inefficiency and capital accumulation in the very long run, although part of it could indeed be ameliorated by taxing capital flight.

Besides, here's the paper making the case for the superior efficiency of the wealth tax.
Use It or Lose It: Efficiency Gains from Wealth Taxation
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp764.pdf
The basic intuition is trivial. Is is always more efficient to tax according to potential than outcome.

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if a wealth tax was better than a capital gains one. But that's a fairly low bar to consider, in all. And it's not, as far as I'm aware, being sold as a replacement of a capital gains tax.

If it replaced a capital gains tax, that could be different but it doesn't seem like that is in the books.

[Unthinking Majority]

Weren't we discussing stockbrokers? :?:



You are now just moving the goal posts because your argument is weak. What has skill level or labor force got to do with whether or not a job is essential? Shopfloor workers contribute to society. Significantly more than stockbrokers who have a knack of destroying society. If the free market doesn't cater to that in a fair way, it is up to the state to rectify that. Hence tax and hence subsidies. And if the system fails the bourgeois lose out as the power in every society is in numbers.

You're the one moving the goalposts. Now you're talking about essential services. We were talking about value and wages. Stockbrokers make higher wages because their skills are in higher demand because the supply of their skillset is lower, their skills are more valuable than cashiers. That's it that's all. Yours or my subjective opinion of who we "need" more is totally irrelevant.

Paying cashiers higher wages than stockbrokers is a stupid idea based on "Wall Street evil waaaaaah"

[B0ycey]

You're the one moving the goalposts. Now you're talking about essential services. We were talking about value and wages. Stockbrokers make higher wages because their skills are in higher demand because the supply of their skillset is lower, their skills are more valuable than cashiers. That's it that's all. Yours or my subjective opinion of who we "need" more is totally irrelevant.

Paying cashiers higher wages than stockbrokers is a stupid idea based on "Wall Street evil waaaaaah"

I haven't mentioned pay levels or wages at all so who have we engaged in debate on this? Our conversation began with tax, I mentioned shopfloor workers are key workers whilst stock brokers aren't and you felt you wanted to debate that. When I smashed that argument you moved the goal posts.

I don't feel the need to discuss pay. People are free to negotiate that themselves. As long as people are taxed appropriately and subsidies exist so people can afford to live, then until something comes along better, I will accept welfare as a compromise to counteract the unfair free market movements to keep people from revolution.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes, stockbrokers provide a service, which the rich value.

This job is not universally valued or universally necessary. It serves only a specific target market that has large amounts of disposable income. Like fashion photographers, or psychologists for pets.

Most people who use stockbrokers aren't the rich, it's working people who sock away a small % of every paycheck to invest so when they can retire and live decently.

Cashiers at supermarkets, on the other hand, serve everyone in a way that makes it possible for us to eat, It is universally necessary.

Therefore they should make more money than Jeff Bezos, because we don't need Amazon? It's a terrible, terrible argument.

Yes and no; that is overly simplistic. Other things like risk, target markets, experience, location, and social capital also impact value.

No it's just supply and demand and those things you mention work into them.

Drug dealers and garbage collectors also require no special skills. Why do they make more money?

Nobody wants to collect garbage because its a gross job, so supply of people who want to collect garbage is lower than people who want to be a cashier. City workers are also often unionized.

Drug dealers have more skills than cashiers. Demand for hard drugs is high while supply is low, largely because it's illegal.

Yes and no. Value is a subjective reaction. Sewer workers and janitors are objectively important and essential for saving lives in terms of disease. The fact that most people do not value them (i.e. have a subjective reaction that is logically consistent with the objectively verifiable fact that these people save lives) does not make them less worthy of value.

All jobs have economic value otherwise they wouldn't exist. Some jobs are more valuable than others and is reflected in wages. A professional basketball player makes millions of dollars and a janitor makes little money because the supply of world-class basketball players is extremely limited. There's only one person in the world who can do what Lebron James does, and he sells many thousands of tickets and t-shirts and TV ratings because he helps his team win better than any other player in the entire world, and therefore has tremendous economic value reflected in his salary. Virtually anyone can clean floors, so the wages are far lower. Supply and demand.

Unverifiable speculation is not an argument.

If stocks are not bought and sold on a regular basis the economy would collapse. Not everyone knows how to buy and sell stocks and bonds on a market or do it competently so they use a broker.

[Unthinking Majority]

I haven't mentioned pay levels or wages at all so who have we engaged in debate on this? Our conversation began with tax, I mentioned shopfloor workers are key workers whilst stock brokers aren't and you felt you wanted to debate that. When I smashed that argument you moved the goal posts.

I don't feel the need to discuss pay. People are free to negotiate that themselves. As long as people are taxed appropriately and subsidies exist so people can afford to live, then until something comes along better, I will accept welfare as a compromise to counteract the unfair free market movements to keep people from revolution.

You said a stockbroker contributes less to society than a cashier. Do you believe a cashier should be paid more than stockbroker?

I agree people should be taxed appropriately, and the wealthy should be taxed far more than the low income class, and agree in a welfare state and regulations, and that offshore tax havens should be restricted.

[B0ycey]

You said a stockbroker contributes less to society than a cashier. Do you believe a cashier should be paid more than stockbroker?

There is absolutely no doubt a shopfloor worker who helps feed a nation contributes more for society than a stockbroker who generates wealth for his firm or a minority of already rich clients. In fact stockbrokers nearly destroyed capitalism/society in 2008 and were bailed out by tax payers. How ironic.

As for pay, do you want the moral answer or wage fund doctrine?

[Pants-of-dog]

Most people who use stockbrokers aren't the rich, it's working people who sock away a small % of every paycheck to invest so when they can retire and live decently.

This does not contradict the point that stockbrokers are not universally necessary, or that they only serve a specific target market with large amounts of disposable income.

Therefore they should make more money than Jeff Bezos, because we don't need Amazon? It's a terrible, terrible argument.

This is a strawman. Having said that, Bezos’s cashiers make money for Bezos while Bezos does not make money for the cashiers.

No it's just supply and demand and those things you mention work into them.

Ignoring economics is not an argument.

Nobody wants to collect garbage because its a gross job, so supply of people who want to collect garbage is lower than people who want to be a cashier. City workers are also often unionized.

Drug dealers have more skills than cashiers. Demand for hard drugs is high while supply is low, largely because it's illegal.

So you now are trying not to agree that there are other factors. If supply and demand were the only factors determining wage then doctors would literally be paid whatever they want.

All jobs have economic value otherwise they wouldn't exist. Some jobs are more valuable than others and is reflected in wages. A professional basketball player makes millions of dollars and a janitor makes little money because the supply of world-class basketball players is extremely limited. There's only one person in the world who can do what Lebron James does, and he sells many thousands of tickets and t-shirts and TV ratings because he helps his team win better than any other player in the entire world, and therefore has tremendous economic value reflected in his salary. Virtually anyone can clean floors, so the wages are far lower. Supply and demand.

You ignored my point.

Again, the subjective value that we give people is not necessarily indicative of their actual worth.

Garbage collectors objectively save lives by clearing away an important disease vector.

And this is true no matter how little or much they get paid.

If stocks are not bought and sold on a regular basis the economy would collapse. Not everyone knows how to buy and sell stocks and bonds on a market or do it competently so they use a broker.

You have now explained why you think your unverifiable speculation is logical.

It is still unverifiable speculation and is therefore not an argument.

[Unthinking Majority]

There is absolutely no doubt a shopfloor worker who helps feed a nation contributes more for society than a stockbroker who generates wealth for his firm or a minority of already rich clients. In fact stockbrokers nearly destroyed capitalism/society in 2008 and were bailed out by tax payers. How ironic.

Stockbrokers didn't cause 2008. That was caused by their employers (usually banks) and policymakers. Policymakers, banks, and brokers (mortgage brokers, stockbrokers, insurance brokers) are still necessary even if they act like ass-hats sometimes.

Most of the people who use stockbrokers aren't rich, they're regular working people who save a bit of their paychecks over the decades for retirement. If you think preventing senior citizens from going hungry or losing their houses when they retire while providing countless companies needed capital in order to grow is not vital to society then I can't help you. Who do you think owns Walmart? It's a publicly traded company, 49.9% is owned by the masses accounting for billions of individual shares.

[B0ycey]

Stockbrokers didn't cause 2008. That was caused by their employers (usually banks) and policymakers. Policymakers, banks, and brokers (mortgage brokers, stockbrokers, insurance brokers) are still necessary even if they act like ass-hats sometimes.

Whhhhaaaattt!!

It would help if you knew...well something to be frank. 2008 was started by banks giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them in America and stock brokers repacketing them with other toxic assets and then selling them on for a quick profit. The practice was so universal that what starting in America affected the whole world.

Most of the people who use stockbrokers aren't rich,

Wow. If you can afford a stockbroker I would say you are not poor. But sure there are middle class earners who want to do something with their savings.

If you think preventing senior citizens from going hungry or losing their houses when they retire while providing countless companies needed capital in order to grow is not vital to society then I can't help you.

You are getting desperate. Your arguments are so weak you are now resorting to emotion. You think people need stocks to retire? How about state pension?

As for companies, they can make a loan or sell shares. You don't need a broker to buy shares. Don't you know @colliric says there are being automated anyway not to mention Robin Fuckin' Hood.

[Who do you think owns Walmart? It's a publicly traded company, 49.9% is owned by the masses accounting for billions of individual shares.

So? Clearly they care more about dividends than the guys who make their profits.

[Unthinking Majority]

This does not contradict the point that stockbrokers are not universally necessary, or that they only serve a specific target market with large amounts of disposable income.

Retired people?

Stockbrokers are as universally necessary as cashiers. As I said, I can checkout my own groceries at Walmart and order and pay for my own food at McDonalds at the self-checkouts. People can trade their own stocks using online brokers. Cashiers and stockbrokers both provide a service for people who want help doing this. This function is necessary whether they are done by people themselves using self-serve technology or by others providing the service for them. Trading stocks and giving financial advice requires far more education and skill than working a checkout, therefore brokers make more money.

This is a strawman. Having said that, Bezos’s cashiers make money for Bezos while Bezos does not make money for the cashiers.

Bezos employs over 1 million people with jobs. Of course he makes them money LOL. He doesn't have cashiers, but let's call them order fillers.

His company sells countless items from countless companies and he makes tons of people a TON of money. His company shipped millions of people items during COVID. His company helped keep the economy afloat while people could work and live from home without getting spreading COVID while shopping at retail. His ideas have been ridiculously valuable to the economy and to society.

He's arguably the most economically valuable worker in the world and he's the richest man in the world to show for it. Compare that to a person working the cash at Walmart. They provide a valuable service too (otherwise there would be no cashiers), but they're far less valuable than Bezos by orders of magnitude. Imagine how many masks and bottles of sanitizer Bezos' company sold during COVID. Of course, he can't do that without the 1 million people he employs who stock and ship the product, but they couldn't have shipped it without Bezos. The difference is there's only a small amount of people in his country who can do his job as good as he can, while there's a large % of people who can do a good job as an order filler.

So you now are trying not to agree that there are other factors. If supply and demand were the only factors determining wage then doctors would literally be paid whatever they want.

Even if there were only 1 doctor in a city that doctor's income would still be determined by supply and demand, if his wage were determined by the market and not government. He or his employer couldn't charge whatever they want, they could only charge as much as people have. Price and wage are determined by supply and demand in a market, this is basic economics.

Garbage collectors objectively save lives by clearing away an important disease vector.

You're equating the value of the job function to the value of the employee. If virtually anyone can do a particular job the employee is of a low value when measured against other employees who are more highly skilled and in demand. Janitors have vital duties, but most people can do those duties and that's reflected in wage.