Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Admiral Yi]

Fredo:  I have no idea how to change corporate governance rules.  Alls I know is the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people how much they can pay a person to run their company for them.

I'm a little dubious about your claim of regressivity.  Do you mean to say that Bush made the US tax code more progressive than it was under Bubba???

I don't give a shit about the housing market.  Let it find bottom.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm a little dubious about your claim of regressivity.  Do you mean to say that Bush made the US tax code more progressive than it was under Bubba???

Actually I think that's true. It's lower overall with a higher percentage paid by upper earners.

[Alcibiades]

I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.

Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?

[MadImmortalMan]

I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.

Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?

A lot better then I could pay it making 0.

[Alcibiades]

I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.

Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?

A lot better then I could pay it making 0.

Just saying, it's not necessarily a viable solution.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.

The problem is:
a. when 50 other people are applying to that same position.
b. when the manager has a choice between hiring teenagers who work for peanuts, or a laid-off middle-aged guy with a college degree and family of four. One is going to leave first chance he gets and demand more money.

[alfred russel]

Fredo:  I have no idea how to change corporate governance rules.  Alls I know is the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people how much they can pay a person to run their company for them.

Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.

I'm a little dubious about your claim of regressivity.  Do you mean to say that Bush made the US tax code more progressive than it was under Bubba???

You know that if we are just talking the income tax that is true. Of course, a tax cut on the one major tax the rich pay while leaving payroll taxes (and state/local sales taxes and property taxes) untouched isn't especially left wing.

I don't give a shit about the housing market.  Let it find bottom.

Simply taking away the tax deduction now would be a real kick in the arse to homeowners who have put the bulk of their wealth into homes valued with an assumption of a continued interest deduction. Especially now that the economy is strained in part due to the already depressed value of homes and a wave of foreclosures.

[Neil]

I think income tax rates at all income levels should be raised to the Clinton era rates.

This may not be a bad idea, but it would:
a) make the income tax even less progressive than it already is, and
b) for the well off, only raise their rates marginal rates about 4.5%.

Neither of those are bad things.  You could always return tax rates to what they were in the Eisenhower years, although that might suck up a lot of money that is used to inflate various bubbles.

I think the home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated.

That isn't going to help the housing market.

That's a good thing.  The housing market isn't supposed to recover.  That's why it was a bubble.  All kinds of real estate assets were overvalued, so 'recovering' them back to their overvalued status would be economically destructive.

[Neil]

I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.

Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?

A lot better then I could pay it making 0.

Not really.  If you miss you monthly needs by $1,000, it's not much different than missing by $2,000.  Either way, you're still fucked until the bankruptcy clears, and you'll lose your house either way.

[Admiral Yi]

Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.

Then let the status quo persist.  If shareholders are OK with CEO pay, it's not really anybody else's business.

[Martinus]

Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.

Then let the status quo persist.  If shareholders are OK with CEO pay, it's not really anybody else's business.

I thought that argument has been debunked a thousand of times.

[The Brain]

Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.

Then let the status quo persist.  If shareholders are OK with CEO pay, it's not really anybody else's business.

I thought that argument has been debunked a thousand of times.

Which argument?

[Gups]

I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.

Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?

A lot better then I could pay it making 0.

Not really.  If you miss you monthly needs by $1,000, it's not much different than missing by $2,000.  Either way, you're still fucked until the bankruptcy clears, and you'll lose your house either way.

Quite. You would be much better off, spending those 25-30 hours a week looking for a job commensurate with your expenditure. Or spending the time cutting your expnditure ruthlessly e.g. moving house, selling your children etc

[Admiral Yi]

I thought that argument has been debunked a thousand of times.

Why are you addressing me when it's Fredo that made the point?

[The Minsky Moment]

A problem with "wall street" post-crisis is basically the same problem as pre-crisis: the financial industry enjoins privatized gains and socialized losses and liabilities; its ability to free ride on explicit and implicit government guarantees combined with the various agency problems plaguing corporate governance and an economy that is reliant of speculative financing of investment to achieve growth all leads ineluctable to vast rewards being paid out to people for doing jobs of limited social utility and benefit.

The solution to that particular problem is either: (a) separate out the government underwritten parts of the financial system from those parts where the bankers bear the full brunt of risk, or (b) far more intrusive government regulation of the industry including direct regulation of pay scales.    I suspect that politically, (b) is never going to be a possible option in the US.  For (a) the problem is establishing the credibility of the government's pledge not to intervene, because if an officially unprotected entity is systemically important, the government will be hard pressed to sit on its hand and watch it go down.  To make the (a) option credible would IMO mean, significant measures such as blocking the use of the corporate form and other limited liability entities to the unsubsidized groups, and putting in place limits on the size of such groups.

Of course even if all this is done, it would not solve the employment problem, or restore median incomes, or even significantly dent overall inequalities in the dsitribution of incomes.  These problems and their solutions require far more than reforming Wall Street.