• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Finance industry workers caused the GDP to shrink

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,745
Reaction score
24,087
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
While reading up on poverty in the U.S., I came across this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
A 2012 International Monetary Fund study concluded that the US financial sector has grown so large that it is slowing economic growth. New York University economist Thomas Philippon supported those findings, estimating that the US spends $300 billion too much on financial services per year, and that the sector needs to shrink by 20%. Harvard University and University of Chicago economists agreed, calculating in 2014 that workers in research and development add $5 to the GDP for each dollar they earn, but finance industry workers cause the GDP to shrink by $0.60 for every dollar they are paid.[SUP][287][/SUP] A study by the Bank for International Settlements reached similar conclusions, saying the finance industry impedes economic growth and research and development based industries.[SUP][288][/SUP]

I admit I was surprised to read that. Thoughts?

I'm in R&D, and I use Vanguard for investment (low cost picks), I think I am not exacerbating this issue..I hope!
 
heres the article from the source

Ariell Reshef of the University of Virginia, have shown that from the end of World War II until the early 1980s, finance was just like any other desk job: The average Wall Street worker was paid about as much as the average worker in the private sector and was only slightly more educated.

But starting at about the time that Jackson joined Goldman, when Congress began tweaking investment-tax rates, Wall Street started drawing more educated workers. This made the average finance salary go up — from less than $50,000 a year in 1981 (which is about $100,000 in today’s dollars) to more than $350,000 a year in 2012.

Salaries rose even faster in the mid-1990s. The average finance worker began to earn more than a similar non-finance worker who had the same amount of schooling. Wall Street executives began to command salaries several times the rate that non-finance executives could.

In sheer dollar terms, it became irrational for almost any qualified American graduate to pass on a Wall Street job. By the mid-2000s, finance workers earned about 50 percent more than they would have in a similar job anywhere else in the economy. There are almost twice as many financial professionals in the top 1 percent of American income earners today as there were in 1979, according to researchers from Williams College, Indiana University and the Treasury Department. Almost 1 in 5 members of the top 0.1 percent work in finance.

You might think finance workers earned all that money because they were selling new and improved financial products that delivered more value — that helped get money more efficiently from investors who had it to entrepreneurs who could put it to profitable use. Research suggests that’s not the case.

A black hole for our best and brightest | The Washington Post
 
The part that ties it together for me is the block immediately following...

Philippon tracked the fees that banks and other asset managers take when they move money between investors and borrowers. In theory, the managers should charge less as their technology improves, because they become more efficient and more competitive with one another. (Or, if they charge the same amount, they should generate better returns for investors.)

That’s how it works with, say, your laptop: As the technology improves, you can either buy a better computer for the same price as your last one or you can buy a clone of your last one for less.

In finance, Philippon found, the opposite is true. Financial firms pocket about 2 percent of the money that passes through their hands. That’s basically unchanged from the price of finance in 1920, and it’s actually an increase from the mid-1960s. “It seems that improvements in information technologies over the past 30 years have not necessarily led to a decrease” in the price of financial intermediation, he concluded in the paper.

How can this be? To me it's likely - increased concentration of wealth means the people that are investing are less attached to their input investment. As long as they're getting a return on money they've already "stockpiled" (a term used in the article), they're not paying much attention to what is being skimmed off the top.
 
for anyone in a small company, all you have to do is look at your funds in your 401k

expense ratios and management fees can easily top 2-4% annually

compare that to cheap etf funds available at .15% expense ratio, and you can see where they start to bleed money off

but then i ask myself....is it better for people to invest and someone to take 2-3% annually....but still grow their money

or not to invest at all....which is what was happening for the longest time....

401k's made it easy for joe public to actually build a nest egg....
 
Back
Top Bottom