US Politics, unnumbered

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You didn't suffer through securities law like I did, did you? :)

At this point, that was so long ago that I honestly don't remember. I think I took specific courses on UCC Article 4 and Article 9 stuff, but that was as close as I got. Thank God!

[Guest Raidne]

You'd remember. You would have had to draft the warnings section of a prospectus, which is not the kind of thing one forgets. :)

This is not really a UCC thing. The meat of what you're looking for is the 1933 Act, but it's been modified many, many times since then.

But from Wiki:

The 33 Act is based upon a philosophy of disclosure, meaning that the goal of the law is to require issuers to fully disclose all material information that a reasonable shareholder would require in order to make up his or her mind about the potential investment.

Prior to the act, we had state Blue Sky laws, which are like what you seem to think federal law is like:

This is very different from the philosophy of the blue sky laws, which generally impose so-called "merit reviews." Blue sky laws often impose very specific, qualitative requirements on offerings, and if a company does not meet the requirements in that state then it simply will not be allowed to do a registered offering there, no matter how fully its faults are disclosed in the prospectus.

Currently, federal law actually preempts state laws on this in many respects, thereby preventing event state merit review of offerings.

Rules 504, 505, and 506 of Regulation D articulate the three major exemptions to disclosure rules, which includes offerings made only to "accredited investors," if other requirements are met, which is defined here:

http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm

I'm thinking all of these CDOs, etc., are exempt. I personally think the exemptions are maybe not a great a idea. They don't even have to file a registration form stating the description of the company's properties and business, a description of the security, information about the management of the company, and certified financial statements (I believe SarbOx really gets at the process of certifying those statements, and who they can be certified by).

When the SEC nails companies, it's for misrepresenting the stuff they publish in these documents, not for being bad, bad people.

I believe there are other criminal penalties, but seeing as Congress passed a law in 2009 or 2010 (the Democratic Congress) explictly including "mortgage investments" or something like that in the meaning of "financial investments," I'm gathering that a lot of stuff just didn't apply to mortgage securities, much less CDSs, which are basically akin to taking out an insurance policy against the collapse of the CDO market comprised of mortgage securities.

And nobody but fund managers were buying this stuff. And banks. Although banks mostly bought CDOs, because they are stupid. That is what tanked the economy. People who 100% should know better. And are still arguing that they know so much better that we shouldn't subject these securities to standard disclosure requirements.

I know it's hard to believe, but that is really what the anti-regulation argument is there.

Without CDSs, there would not have been a major bank collapse. Some financial institutions would still have failed, but not as many, because there had to be CDSs before there could be synthetic CDOs, which is what a lot of these institutions bought. Without CDOs that were fraudulently rated, we wouldn't have had a collapse at all, or a glut of mortgages signed out to people who could not afford them, because there would have been no such market for those things.

So, you can step in and ban CDSs, because they are literally worth amounts of money that bankrupt entire major banks - nobody really knows how much, still. They are nuclear bombs in the market. Beyond that, you require better reporting and disclosure of CDOs, which would allow people other than the rating agencies to really dig in to the prospectus, etc., and see what they are getting, and gives the SEC the power to prevent fraud if those documents are, in fact, fraudulent. To me, from the top down, that should fix a lot of the problems in the securities market.

Do you really have a problem with either of those things?

[Shryke]

Except I don't think most people take into the consideration the compensation they will make with their degree while choosing their major. Everyone goes to college because they want to make more money, but I don't think many students are out looking at statistics and data and saying "Hot damn, I should be a petroleum or a computer engineer." I think they say "My High School and Parents tell me to do what I enjoy, so I'll major in English with a concentration in literature."

Which is fine... I just don't think that many of these people are doing cost/benefit analysis while looking at the cost of college and their future earning potential. One reason is because student loans aren't underwritten. Other reasons the students probably aren't getting the support from their school/family about whether their major choice is a good one. I know I didn't really "think" about my future earnings potential, but I was lucky enough to enjoy a major that leads to decent compensation.

Firstly, there's like 5 years between choosing your degree and getting it. The job market changes faster then that. WTF are these kids gonna predict?

And you don't really need to look at statistics. A college degree is pretty much a straight plus for getting a job. The only issue is that it's starting to creep into "too expensive" territory.

[Shryke]

That might be so, but where do you think the big three got their monopoly? Why isn't there competition among rating agencies?

Wait, you think the government is enforcing a not-a-monopoly-cause-there's-3-of-them situation?

Being a rating agency requires, if nothing else, lots of trust. And supposedly lots of smart people crunching data and running models and all that shit. None of that is cheap or easy to acquire.

I mean, there's competition among the rating agencies, but it's not an easy market to get in to.

Yep. Wasn't there also some idiot who said something like, "if you have a refrigerator, you're not poor."

I'll give you one guess which network said that.

[TerraPrime]

Firstly, there's like 5 years between choosing your degree and getting it. The job market changes faster then that. WTF are these kids gonna predict?

Well, let's not refute that some majors are better at income generation than other majors. That's simply the truth. It's not a matter of predicting whether in 5 years' time a finance major will be in more demand than an engineering major, but to recognize that the range of jobs geared for an accounting degree will pay more than the range of jobs geared for an English degree.

And you don't really need to look at statistics. A college degree is pretty much a straight plus for getting a job.

That is true that on average, a college degree gives you better job prospects than, say, a high school diploma does, provided one doesn't expect to get a job in the field of the chosen major.

[Guest Raidne]

Indeed. A bachelor's degree in history will help you get into an entry-level position at Enterprise Rent-A-Car, but that probably wasn't what you were thinking about when you picked that major, or went to a $25k/year school, etc. For the purposes of just getting a degree, any degree, go where you can pay the least money and get the major that will give you the best GPA and take the least time that is still applicable. I mean, you can do it in three years, no problem, if that's what you're after.

I ended up getting two entire degrees before settling on law school. It took five years. And I went to classes during the summer. That is just not smart. Of course, if I hadn't done it, where would I be when arguing with all of you? Surely that's worth ten grand. On a serious note, though, I'd never be a happy person without studying philosophy, and I never would have read all the philosophy that I did on my own, so that makes it easier on me when I pay my loan bills.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Beyond that, you require better reporting and disclosure of CDOs, which would allow people other than the rating agencies to really dig in to the prospectus, etc., and see what they are getting, and gives the SEC the power to prevent fraud if those documents are, in fact, fraudulent. To me, from the top down, that should fix a lot of the problems in the securities market.

Do you really have a problem with either of those things?

Conceptually, no. But I don't believe that in practice, it will actually solve the problem. A shitload of people aren't going to read that stuff anyway. They just won't. Sophisticated, larger investors have always been able to ask for more informationy, and fraud rules apply there already. And the unsophisticated/smaller ones won't read it. Didn't you point out that a lot of the banks didn't look into this stuff as they should have even when the burden of reviewing that information was less? Plus, I'm not sure if the problem was as much actual fraud as it was folks just being more willing to take risks than they should have been. I don't see how this solves the problem as opposed to nibbling at the edges.

And you're only talking about specific SEC regulations, but I'm including legislation in here as well. Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, etc. also fit in there, and contribute to the general impression that it is the Federal government's job to "look out" for the rest of us on this stuff, sort of akin to the "assumed" guarantee underlying investment in Fannie/Freddie. No, the federal government wasn't legally on the hook for their debts, but everyone assumed (correctly, as it turned out) that it would swoop in if necessary.

On another note, here's something that just came across my computer screen this morning:

The White House announced that the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would provide minimum wage and overtime protections for nearly two million workers who provide in-home care services for the elderly and infirm. The proposal will revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act to more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion, and to limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services. In addition, the Department proposes that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

Now, there is the intended effect, and then the actual effect. The intended effect is to get more overtime and wage protection for home health care workers employed by agencies. The actual effect will be to increase the cost of such care to the point where it will not be affordable for some people, and it will be less profitable and a much bigger headache for such agencies to employ those such workers. So the result of this will be fewer jobs, and more people without home health care, or with less than they were getting. The road to economic hell is paved with these kind of good intentions.

And this kind of thing goes on in my field alone on about a weekly basis.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That is true that on average, a college degree gives you better job prospects than, say, a high school diploma does, provided one doesn't expect to get a job in the field of the chosen major.

To some extent, this is true because employers use a college degree as a screening device, not because the education recieved actually makes the individual that much more productive than they would have been otherwise. So for those who want to argue "net benefit to society", increased wages linked to college degrees doesn't necessarily get you there.

[Cuellar]

Firstly, there's like 5 years between choosing your degree and getting it. The job market changes faster then that. WTF are these kids gonna predict?

The high paying majors are consistently high paying jobs, and low paying majors are consistently low. You can pretty much guarentee that if you are learning applicable trade skills in school, you will earn more than getting a generalist education. Science, Engineering, and Business pretty much consitently churns out higher pay than education, music, art, and english.

[Shryke]

Conceptually, no. But I don't believe that in practice, it will actually solve the problem. A shitload of people aren't going to read that stuff anyway. They just won't. Sophisticated, larger investors have always been able to ask for more information anyway, and fraud rules apply there already. And the unsophisticated/smaller ones won't read it anyway. Didn't you point out that a lot of the banks didn't look into this stuff as they should have anyway? Plus, I'm not sure if the problem was as much actual fraud as it was folks just being more willing to take risks than they should have been. I don't see how this solves that problem.

And you're only talking about specific SEC regulations, but I'm including legislation in here as well. Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, etc. also fit in there, and contribute to the general impression that it is the Federal government's job to "look out" for the rest of us on this stuff. Anyway....

It certainly should be.

The bolded here is the big problem: people will act in ways that are to their own short-term self-interest but aren't to their own long-term self-interest and are detrimental to the economy as a whole.

And you fix this by not letting them do that shit in the first place.

On another note, here's something that just came across my desk:

The White House announced that the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would provide minimum wage and overtime protections for nearly two million workers who provide in-home care services for the elderly and infirm. The proposal will revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act to more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion, and to limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services. In addition, the Department proposes that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

Now, there is the intended effect, and then the actual effect. The intended effect is to get more overtime and wage protection for home health care workers employed by agencies. The actual effect will be to increase the cost of such care to the point where it will not be affordable for some people, and it will be less profitable for such agencies to employe those people.. So the result of this will be fewer jobs, and more people without home health care, or with less than they were getting. The road to economic hell is paved with these kind of good intentions.

And this kind of thing goes on in my field alone on about a weekly basis.

So your suggestion is ... what? Some people just shouldn't get certain protections and rights?

[TrackerNeil]

Millions of thanks for the Affordable Care Act. I'm often pessimistic about the way things in this nation are going, but this had me smiling all day.

[Shryke]

The high paying majors are consistently high paying jobs, and low paying majors are consistently low. You can pretty much guarentee that if you are learning applicable trade skills in school, you will earn more than getting a generalist education. Science, Engineering, and Business pretty much consitently churns out higher pay than education, music, art, and english.

Right but not everyone can get a degree in those fields. We don't need that many people getting some of those degrees, not everyone can actually do a bunch of these degrees and finally if everyone gets one, the value of said degree goes down, negating the point.

And finally, what you all missed was that we aren't just talking about WHAT degree you get. We are talking about the decision to get one at all. On average, it's a large boost to your earning potential. This is, of course, off-set by the cost in obtaining it. This is an economic decision. Cost vs Payout and all that.

Thing is, neither of those are calculable. Both the cost of education and more importantly the economy and the job market as a whole are in constant flux. The kids graduating right now are getting fucked by the shitty economy and there was no way they could have predicted this when they graduated high school.

[TerraPrime]

And this kind of thing goes on in my field alone on about a weekly basis.

All regulations come at a cost to operate. I think none is disputing that. The contention is whether the cost outweighs the benefits. In this case, you are saying that the cost includes fewer people being able to afford home healthcare and then fewer agencies will exist. But you seem to be quite silent on the benefits of these regulations on the ones who will remain in employment. Is it that there're no benefits to these new rules?

In essence, this is the same sort of argument used against child and other exploitative labor practices in developing countries. If we enforce proper labor laws, then the cost of operation will become prohibitive and these t-shirt and athletic shoes companies will stop having overseas plants at all, so the net loss of jobs in these developing countries outweigh the benefits.

This type of argument seems so odd to me when it comes from free-market supporters. You're acknowledging that the cost of a service (making a t-shirt, providing healthcare services at home) is low because of current conditions (exploitative labor practice, lack of insurance and overtime pay), and yet you seem to be arguing that this is the price of the service as it should be. Rather, shouldn't the price be set by the new supply and demand as conditions change? I feel odd in arguing this because this seems to be switching places. But it is essentially the same argument any time any regulation leads to an increase in cost.

What? You want coal-burning plants to limit soot and sulfur dioxide emission? Well, you can't, because it will make electricity more expensive and ergo, more people will be unable to pay for it.

Or, you want the SUVs to meet a minmum requirement for roll over safeties? Nope, can't have it, because it will make the cars more expensive and fewer people will buy it and ergo, fewer commercial transactions.

Instead, shouldn't we be saying that this old way of doing business is bad in these ways and so we're not fixing it. This fix will mean a level of reduction in affordability for this product, so some of you will need to find other jobs and some of you will not be able to continue to enjoy this service. The rest of the market will adjust to this new regulation and we'll reach a new equilibrium.

[Guest Raidne]

FLOW, from what I understand, the information was not readily available. Where would it have been available? An example - at one point, Goldman was offering it's customers a synthetic CDO called "Hudson." It would not have been clear to the buyers that the CDO was comprised not of tranches of subprime mortgage loans, but of the short-side of CDSs, hence "synthetic." Where would they have discovered that information?\

Now, really, Goldman's customers should have been able to assume some amount of good faith and fair dealing, considering their relationship really - I mean, honestly, they sold off the sort side of their own investments to their own clients???

But really, at a minimum, the information should have been accessible on EDGAR, like everything that's registered with the SEC is, and thereby protected against fraud.

Sure, sure, you can litigate a private fraud case in torts against Goldman Sachs in front of a judge who doesn't understand WTF you're talking about. Good luck. Probably better to be able to file a complaint with the SEC.

[Shryke]

The SEC only "nationally recognizes" certain credit rating agencies, and continues to recognize the buffoons that rated everything and anything double plus good. Kind of kills competition when the winners are already picked regardless of how bad they are at doing their job.

That doesn't stop anyone else from starting one up though. It's just, no one would trust your judgement. Which is the exact same problem you'd have without the SEC recognizing you.

The SEC isn't picking winners, it's acknowledging the people who already won.

[Shryke]

Some sort of good/not bad news:

Fewer Americans filed for their first week of unemployment benefits last week. So few in fact, that initial jobless claims were at their lowest level since May 2008.

About 366,000 people filed initial jobless claims in the week ended Dec. 10, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was a decrease of 19,000 from the prior week, and far better than the bigger influx of claims that economists were expecting.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/economy/unemployment_benefits/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

All regulations come at a cost to operate. I think none is disputing that. The contention is whether the cost outweighs the benefits. In this case, you are saying that the cost includes fewer people being able to afford home healthcare and then fewer agencies will exist. But you seem to be quite silent on the benefits of these regulations on the ones who will remain in employment. Is it that there're no benefits to these new rules?

There is some benefit, though smaller than you might think. And the benefit always goes to those who manage to remain employed. The problem is that as we keep doing this over and over, we create a system with more and more people unemployed/unemployable as those benefits go to those who remain remployed.

In essence, this is the same sort of argument used against child and other exploitative labor practices in developing countries. If we enforce proper labor laws, then the cost of operation will become prohibitive and these t-shirt and athletic shoes companies will stop having overseas plants at all, so the net loss of jobs in these developing countries outweigh the benefits.

And in some cases, that is true. It is better to have a shitty job than to starve to death. But that's not what we're talking about with respect to home health care workers.

The thing is with the overtime laws is that employers have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If you have mandatory overtime laws, rather than resulting in employees getting paid more net money, the employer effectively has a lower rate of pay to account for the additional cost of time and a half. The amount of money received will usually end up the same over time. It's just that you add a layer of complexity and reduce flexibility. And in essence, you're really just regulating the manner/structure of compensation, not the actual amount.

If the employer is super cheap, and just makes everyone work at the lower wage rate for excess hours indefinitely, they are going to lose employees to employers who don't, or end up with a shittier workforce, which has its own disadvantages. And to the extent people want to argue about a "race to the bottom", if that were truly the case, then everyone would be making minimum wage, because that's "the bottom". When the truth is there are plenty of market forces that prevent employers from doing so.

This type of argument seems so odd to me when it comes from free-market supporters. You're acknowledging that the cost of a service (making a t-shirt, providing healthcare services at home) is low because of current conditions (exploitative labor practice, lack of insurance and overtime pay), and yet you seem to be arguing that this is the price of the service as it should be.

You're defining those conditions as "exploitative", which I think is kind of circular. But in essence, I would respond by saying you can't make labor worth more than the value of what it produces. If people aren't willing to pay more than a certain amount for non-essential goods, they simply won't pay it. You can legislate higher wages if you choose, but the result will be that there will be far fewer people buying, and therefore fewer people employed. I don't see how that is necessarily a benefit.

Rather, shouldn't the price be set by the new supply and demand as conditions change?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that price should not be set, at least in part, by the cost of labor used to produce it? The cost of production is an element of "supply", which is part of what sets the price.

I would add that lower prices -- even when due to lower wages -- benefit wage earners in their capacity as consumers when they go to buy stuff with the wages they have earned.

What? You want coal-burning plants to limit soot and sulfur dioxide emission? Well, you can't, because it will make electricity more expensive and ergo, more people will be unable to pay for it.

I have never said that I oppose all regulation, and in fact have said that I specifically support the concept of the government regulating pollution. That is an externality that can't be taken into account by the market.

Or, you want the SUVs to meet a minmum requirement for roll over safeties? Nope, can't have it, because it will make the cars more expensive and fewer people will buy it and ergo, fewer commercial transactions.

That gets tougher, because as it makes cars more expensive, people may respond by buying smaller, cheaper, less safe/older cars. Or not being able to afford one at all.

Instead, shouldn't we be saying that this old way of doing business is bad in these ways and so we're not fixing it. This fix will mean a level of reduction in affordability for this product, so some of you will need to find other jobs and some of you will not be able to continue to enjoy this service. The rest of the market will adjust to this new regulation and we'll reach a new equilibrium.

But that equilibrium won't be at the same place as the old one, which, in a sense, is my entire point in this thread.

We add all these regulations, requirements, fix externalities, etc., and as you apparently acknowledge, this is going to have a cost associated with it. So I know you get it in an intellectual sense. But it seems when all this stuff is aggregated, the recognition that there were costs associated with all these things seems to vanish, and people talk about declines in real wages, lower employment, etc. Well, yes. You added all these other costs, addressed externalities, offered non-monetary benefits, etc. The result of this, effectively, is that a lot of economic compensation has been replaced by these noneconomic (or sometimes economic but in a form other than wages) benefts that we apparently valued more than the raw, unencumbered wages we used to get.

People are perfectly entitled to value those things to that degree, but that should come with the recognition that, over time, it's going to take a pretty good chunk out of wages and purchasing power. And that recognition seems to exist when we talk about individual regulations or pieces of legislation, but when you look at the aggregate, it all gets dismissed as some sort of talking point.

[Shryke]

Ahhh, so the SEC is actually encouraging competition among rating agencies by endorsing the ones that made the mistakes! Brilliant.

No, the SEC is just putting it's weight behind the rating agencies that already exist in order to facilitate the financial markets, which depend on rating agencies.

[awesome possum]

Frustrations with Congress could hurt incumbent Republicans

Two-in-three voters say most members of Congress should be voted out of office in 2012 – the highest on record. And the number who say their own member should be replaced matches the all-time high recorded in 2010, when fully 58 members of Congress lost reelection bids – the most in any election since 1948.

..

The Republican Party is taking more of the blame than the Democrats for a do-nothing Congress. A record-high 50% say that the current Congress has accomplished less than other recent Congresses, and by nearly two-to-one (40% to 23%) more blame Republican leaders than Democratic leaders for this. By wide margins, the GOP is seen as the party that is more extreme in its positions, less willing to work with the other side to get things done, and less honest and ethical in the way it governs. And for the first time in over two years, the Democratic Party has gained the edge as the party better able to manage the federal government.

While I'd love to see all Republicans voted out, I now want all Democrats to join them.

I think anyone who has served more than one term should be voted out. They can all go to hell and die.

If the GOP hadn't put up such a horrendous list of nominees this year, I'd feel the same about Obama and getting that cowardly piece of shit out of office too.

[Shryke]

There is some benefit, though smaller than you might think. And the benefit always goes to those who manage to remain employed. The problem is that as we keep doing this over and over, we create a system with more and more people unemployed/unemployable as those benefits go to those who remain remployed.

Really? Where is this happening? Is the rest of the non-US first world choking under heavy unemployment due to regulation?

And in some cases, that is true. It is better to have a shitty job than to starve to death. But that's not what we're talking about with respect to home health care workers.

The thing is with the overtime laws is that employers have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If you have mandatory overtime laws, rather than resulting in employees getting paid more net money, the employer effectively has a lower rate of pay to account for the additional cost of time and a half. The amount of money received will usually end up the same over time. It's just that you add a layer of complexity and reduce flexibility. And in essence, you're really just regulating the manner/structure of compensation, not the actual amount.

No, what the employer does is hire more people to meet growing demand instead of making his workers do more work. What you are regulating is exactly what overtime exists to regulate: the amount of work you are allowed to demand of a worker

If the employer is super cheap, and just makes everyone work at the lower wage rate for excess hours indefinitely, they are going to lose employees to employers who don't, or end up with a shittier workforce, which has its own disadvantages. And to the extent people want to argue about a "race to the bottom", if that were truly the case, then everyone would be making minimum wage, because that's "the bottom". When the truth is there are plenty of market forces that prevent employers from doing so.

Right, because before minimum wage, no one was payed under that. There totally wasn't a race to the bottom in low skill labour. Nope, not at all.

Your formulation here is incredibly silly and relies on the workers having the upper-hand in negotiations, which is the exact opposite of what actually does and has happened.

You're defining those conditions as "exploitative", which I think is kind of circular. But in essence, I would respond by saying you can't make labor worth more than the value of what it produces. If people aren't willing to pay more than a certain amount for non-essential goods, they simply won't pay it. You can legislate higher wages if you choose, but the result will be that there will be far fewer people buying, and therefore fewer people employed. I don't see how that is necessarily a benefit.

You don't see how people not working in horrible conditions isn't a benefit?

And people will certainly change their buying habits if the cost of labour goes up, but so what? This doesn't mean demand will decrease. It just means the market will shift to compensate.

And shit you are making no fucking sense here since the value of what labour produces is based on the cost of labour. Not the other way around.

I would add that lower prices -- even when due to lower wages -- benefit wage earners in their capacity as consumers when they go to buy stuff with the wages they have earned.

As long as those consumers aren't those same wage earners. In which case, it's a wash because though shit costs less, they are also getting payed less.

That gets tougher, because as it makes cars more expensive, people may respond by buying smaller, cheaper, less safe/older cars. Or not being able to afford one at all.

No, it means people shift to cheaper, more efficient vehicles. Shit, that's a GOOD thing.

But that equilibrium won't be at the same place as the old one, which, in a sense, is my entire point in this thread.

We add all these regulations, requirements, fix externalities, etc., and as you apparently acknowledge, this is going to have a cost associated with it. So I know you get it in an intellectual sense. But it seems when all this stuff is aggregated, the recognition that there were costs associated with all these things seems to vanish, and people talk about declines in real wages, lower employment, etc. Well, yes. You added all these other costs, addressed externalities, offered benefits, etc. The result of this, effectively, is that a lot of economic compensation has been replaced by these noneconomic benefts that we apparently valued more than the raw, unencumbered wages we used to get.

People are perfectly entitled to value those things to that degree, but that should come with the recognition that, over time, it's going to take a pretty good chunk out of wages and purchasing power.

So what if the equilibrium point is different? What's so great about the one that exists now?

And people talk about real wages and such because it's a real issue. Part of it is due to non-wage benefits, but those aren't extra costs but rather the cost of maintaining the same levels in the face of, mostly, a health-care system with insane run-away costs. The last 30-odd years of wage stagnation have not seen dramatic rises in benefits. If anything, benefits have been curtailed.

No, people talk about real wage stagnation and such because wealth is being shifted upward. You can track this. I posted graphs showing it last page. Here's another: http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e20162fdc7da7b970d-800wi

Are the top 0.1% just getting less benefits now? Please.

You are, again, just flat out lying to try and create a fantasy world that fits the narrative you want.