The new @AmerCompass collection begins from a simple premise: the information revolution of the past 30 years has brought about the most consequential technological transformation since the industrial revolution 200 years ago. 🧵
2/ An important thing to understand about the industrial revolution is that it actually made people pretty miserable for a pretty long time -- decades of stagnant to declining wages, declining health and life expectancy, people literally got shorter!
3/ Eventually, policymakers caught up, recognizing that the state needed to play a different role in an industrial economy than it had in an agrarian one. Indentured children in factories and mines were not the same as children working on the family farm.
4/ Modern societies created the welfare state, public-health and environmental regulation, organizing rights and labor standards. But this took about 50 to 100 years. The U.S. didn't really catch up until the 1930s, in the face of a crippling economic depression.
5/ We are now roughly 25 years into the information revolution, and cutting-edge innovations have matured into the world’s most valuable corporations. "Move fast and break things" is less cute when the things being broken are local labor markets or our democratic politics.
6/ Our politics is stuck on "Big Tech" and concerns with the power of certain massive companies. Those concerns are important! But take them away... break everyone up... ensure freedom and competition... and the information era's challenges would be just as big. Sometimes bigger.
7/ Markets now operate in new ways and new places. The labor market no longer requires traditional employment. People living side by side no longer encounter the same information, products, or even prices. In short, assumptions on which we've built our society no longer hold.
8/ I think it's a safe bet that, 50 years from now, people will find ludicrous our resigned acceptance in the early 21st century to children's nearly unfettered access to hardcore pornography, or a third-party market in real-time access to a phone's location.
9/ I suspect (and hope) targeted advertising will be illegal and firms will face something akin to strict liability for their data-storage and -sharing practices; measures that, combined, would vastly reduce the incentive to develop and retain detailed profiles of individuals.
10/ As we found ways to do 100 years ago, we will once again have to find ways to ensure that employers treat workers as people, not interchangeable supply-chain inputs to be ordered, surveilled, discontinued, and written-off as the market demands from day to day.
11/ To start, we have to notice what the information revolution has changed in kind, not merely degree; understand the challenges created; and consider how public policy might respond-- which may look as different from industrial regulation as that looked from British common law.
13/ If you're looking for a more luxurious, peruse-on-the-tablet-at-the-beach experience, the entire Lost in the Super Market project is also available for download as an @AmerCompass Reader (PDF booklet): americancompass.org/wp-content/upl…
14/14 Or, if this thread isn't enough from me, you can start with my Foreword, on Governing after a Revolution. That is all. americancompass.org/essays/governi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I appreciate @DonFSchneider taking the time to reply to my recent essay, We're Just Speculating Here... The Rise of Wall Street and the Fall of American Investment. But I'm not persuaded by his "no investment decline" thesis. Two points in particular:
1. I do see "much weakness in equipment" in his chart -- at least the last ten straight years of data below his long-run average. Here's net investment as % of GDP by decade:
1960s, 1.7%
1970s, 1.9%
1980s, 1.4%
1990s, 1.5%
2000s, 1.3%
2010s, 1.2%
2. Using the GDP deflator for private nonresidential fixed investment to get "real net investment" is facially untenable. He provides the chart. It basically shows no inflation for 40 years. Companies get about as much for $100 in 2020 as they did in 1980.
Thread (1/12). How have Wall Street's fortunes diverged so radically from Main Street's in recent decades? I think a large part of the explanation comes down to our misunderstanding of the word "investment." Most "investors" are doing nothing of the sort. americancompass.org/essays/specula…
2/ My new research brief @AmerCompass classifies publicly traded companies as "Sustainers" or "Eroders" depending on whether they are investing faster than they use up their past investments. Our economy has undergone a transformation. americancompass.org/essays/the-cor…
3/ Half a century ago, the vast majority of companies were Sustainers -- actively investing to grow their capital stock. Now Eroders predominate, returning record amounts of cash to shareholders even as they fail to make the investments they need.
Data on the performance of hedge funds and private equity in the COVID crash's wake is now available and, as @wellscking shows in the latest @AmerCompass Coin-Flip Capitalism update, the picture is not pretty. americancompass.org/essays/coin-fl…
The defense of hedge funds and their disastrously subpar returns in recent years has always been that they are specifically designed NOT to track the market and they provide value precisely because their performance is uncorrelated.
Amazon has repeatedly pushed the envelope on labor practices and then retreated or claimed to reform in the face of bad PR. Come with me on a brief tour of the past decade:
2011: "Instead, they said they were pushed harder and harder to work faster and faster until they were terminated, they quit or they got injured. Those interviewed say turnover at the warehouse is high and many hires don't last more than a few months." mcall.com/news/watchdog/…
2011 contd: "During summer heat waves, Amazon arranged to have paramedics parked in ambulances outside, ready to treat any workers who dehydrated or suffered other forms of heat stress. ... And new applicants were ready to begin work at any time." mcall.com/news/watchdog/…
American families are struggling to make ends meet and an expansion of the social compact to better support them makes sense. But such a program should expect that families are doing their part to support themselves, and go to those with at least some earned income.
By contrast, trying to tackle poverty by just giving cash to households disconnected from the workforce is a bad idea. We should absolutely have a strong safety net, but just "Give People Money" isn't the right answer.
1/ Diving into the family-benefit debate, @wellscking and I are out with a new paper and proposal @AmerCompass today: The Family Income Supplemental Credit. We believe this keeps the best of child allowance proposals while addressing their flaws. 🧵americancompass.org/essays/the-fam…
2/ We argue that an effective family benefit should be designed as an expansion of the social compact and a form of social insurance, helping working families face the costs of child-rearing at a time when they are ill-prepared for it financially.
3/ By contrast, we should not consider "just send everyone money" an effective anti-poverty policy for non-working families. It's not the right way to address poverty, and it erodes important economic and social linkages between income and work.