5.3 million millionaires in the US and only 614 billionaires.

[Bullseye]

Clintons big flaw was being too friendly to Republicans and letting them push through their bank deregulation plans while he was President. The people thought that if even a Democrat likes these bills, they must be good. They were not and only Alan Greenspan properly apologized for his grave error. We heard crickets from the Republicans that wrote those bills

.Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation​

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html​

Except for his first two mediocre years he HAD to be “friendly” to Republicans - they controlled Congress - during the years he rang up those surpluses you’re so proud of.

 

[iguanaman]

Except for his first two mediocre years he HAD to be “friendly” to Republicans - they controlled Congress - during the years he rang up those surpluses you’re so proud of.

Clintons tax increases brought Federal revenue to over 19% of GDP and he did not start a war so of course he had surpluses.

 

[cpwill]

That is easy. They either find a way to make money anyway or close their doors.

Interesting. So, if companies only hire employees who make them a profit, why do you think they will retain any worker who does not, even to the point that doing so results in the death of the business? This seems an especially odd position, given the historical existance of layoffs.

 

[Simpletruther]

You don't think they will do the right thing by dispersing their additional billions and make more millionaires to benefit their country?

Why not make more billionaires?

 

[braindrain]

"Leftwing" billionaires won't flee if we levy a wealth tax. Most of them know they have too much damn money and can't wait to give it away. God knows they can never spend it all and they know that Americans do not believe in "dynasties" and won't create one themselves.

The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage extremely wealthy people to contribute a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. As of August 2020, the pledge has 211 signatories from 23 countries.[1] Most of the signatories of the pledge are billionaires, and as of 2016, their pledges are estimated to total $600 billion.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

So most rich people can’t wait to give away their money but yet very very few actually do. Yeah I don’t dount you believe that.

You do know they can donate to the US government at anytime they want right. Wonder why they don’t.

 

[iguanaman]

Interesting. So, if companies only hire employees who make them a profit, why do you think they will retain any worker who does not, even to the point that doing so results in the death of the business? This seems an especially odd position, given the historical existance of layoffs.

You are making a hypothetical argument since it is a given that companies always make money from employees or they would not hire them. What is the point of this? That raising the minimum wage will bankrupt companies? That is demonstrably false. Ironically the opposite maybe true. The race to the bottom has left many small businesses struggling to make profits because of price wars. When people that spend all the make in the economy have more money small business benefits. When Henry Ford raised his minimum wage to $5 a day he was called a communist but he had the idea that if his workers made more they could buy one of his model T's and the rest is history.

This suggests that purchasing power at the low end of the economy has become so corroded that sellers must fall over themselves to offer prices that barely enable them to make a profit. Whether the franchisees survive is secondary; investors demand companies chase the only growth area for non-luxury goods — the dirt-cheap end of the spectrum.

That’s a result of low wages. Americans did not receive raises from 2007 to 2014, and even that aggregate statistic doesn’t tell the whole story. Wall Street investors encourage companies to cut labor costs; record profits have resulted, with more national income going to the ownership class. Most of the gains since the recession have come at the high end. While low-wage workers are finally seeing some boosts — mostly from minimum wage increases — lack of housing affordability and cost of living rises in areas like health care continue to put them behind.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-dayen-minimum-wage-subway-sandwich-20180105-story.html

 

[cpwill]

You are making a hypothetical argument since it is a given that companies always make money from employees or they would not hire them.

Generally I would agree, that is true. But, the question is: what if something happens AFTER that which causes those employees to no longer be profitable to hire? You suggested earlier that the business would choose to collapse and die. I asked why, given the historical existance of things like layoffs, you would think that. You then avoided answering the question.

What is the point of this? That raising the minimum wage will bankrupt companies?

No. I'm asking what - if a company only hires people if they can make a profit off them - they would do if something were to cause an employees' labor to be no longer worth the cost.

 

[craig]

Generally I would agree, that is true. But, the question is: what if something happens AFTER that which causes those employees to no longer be profitable to hire? You suggested earlier that the business would choose to collapse and die. I asked why, given the historical existance of things like layoffs, you would think that. You then avoided answering the question.



No. I'm asking what - if a company only hires people if they can make a profit off them - they would do if something were to cause an employees' labor to be no longer worth the cost.

In January 1914, Henry Ford started paying his auto workers a remarkable $5 a day. Doubling the average wage helped ensure a stable workforce and likely boosted sales since the workers could now afford to buy the cars they were making. It laid the foundation for an economy driven by consumer demand.

The Middle Class Took Off 100 Years Ago ... Thanks To Henry Ford?

In January 1914, Henry Ford started paying his auto workers a remarkable $5 a day. Doubling the average wage helped ensure a stable workforce and likely boosted sales since the workers could now afford to buy the cars they were making. It laid the foundation for an economy driven by consumer demand.

www.npr.org

 

[iguanaman]

Generally I would agree, that is true. But, the question is: what if something happens AFTER that which causes those employees to no longer be profitable to hire? You suggested earlier that the business would choose to collapse and die. I asked why, given the historical existance of things like layoffs, you would think that. You then avoided answering the question.



No. I'm asking what - if a company only hires people if they can make a profit off them - they would do if something were to cause an employees' labor to be no longer worth the cost.

Without workers all businesses collapse. Is that what you are arguing? That business does not require workers and they hire them out of the goodness of their heart?

 

[cpwill]

In January 1914, Henry Ford started paying his auto workers a remarkable $5 a day. Doubling the average wage helped ensure a stable workforce and likely boosted sales since the workers could now afford to buy the cars they were making. It laid the foundation for an economy driven by consumer demand.

The Middle Class Took Off 100 Years Ago ... Thanks To Henry Ford?

In January 1914, Henry Ford started paying his auto workers a remarkable $5 a day. Doubling the average wage helped ensure a stable workforce and likely boosted sales since the workers could now afford to buy the cars they were making. It laid the foundation for an economy driven by consumer demand.

www.npr.org

It's a well-cited myth, but, a myth it is.

 

[craig]

It's a well-cited myth, but, a myth it is.

That is only a hundred years ago. Do you have other evidence?

 

[cpwill]

Without workers all businesses collapse. Is that what you are arguing?

No. What I am asking - and what you seem to be studiously trying to avoid answering - is: if it is true that a company will only hire a worker if they can make a profit from their labor, what will they company do when conditions change so that they can no longer make a profit off that worker?

 

[cpwill]

That is only a hundred years ago. Do you have other evidence?

Henry Ford paid higher to stop turnover, because working in his factory sucked, and he had a problem with people quitting and moving on to better jobs.

So, the example of Ford's wages is a good learning point. underpaying for labor can be as dangerous to a business at overpaying for it. But, that's not the lesson those who cite it generally intend .

 

[iguanaman]

No. What I am asking - and what you seem to be studiously trying to avoid answering - is: if it is true that a company will only hire a worker if they can make a profit from their labor, what will they company do when conditions change so that they can no longer make a profit off that worker?

They will lay them off without any thought or responsibility for the hardships they may cause them. They are just cogs in the wheel to them. Happy now?

 

[iguanaman]

Henry Ford paid higher to stop turnover, because working in his factory sucked, and he had a problem with people quitting and moving on to better jobs.

So, the example of Ford's wages is a good learning point. underpaying for labor can be as dangerous to a business at overpaying for it. But, that's not the lesson those who cite it generally intend .

Yet Ford was called a communist and a traitor by other business owners and he had lines down the block of people wanting to work for him for that wage. Plus his profits went UP.

 

[cpwill]

They will lay them off without any thought or responsibility for the hardships they may cause them. They are just cogs in the wheel to them.

I don't think that your attempts to ascribe moral value to their actions is necessarily accurate (I suspect you'll find roughly as much variation in levels of care as you will find humans involved), but, in terms of mechanics, I believe you are probably generally correct.

So, when we create policy changes that cause the price of people's labor to rise, those who are not able to outproduce the newer, higher, cost will be let go?

 

[cpwill]

Yet Ford was called a communist and a traitor by other business owners and he had lines down the block of people wanting to work for him for that wage. Plus his profits went UP.

Good for him, I suppose. As I said; underpaying for labor is ultimately as dangerous for a business as overpaying for it is. Though I'm not aware of any of his contemporaries calling him a communist. That would be interesting. Can you cite that?

 

[iguanaman]

So this was Ford’s theory: Companies had an interest in ensuring that their employees could afford the products they produced. Put another way, employers had a role to play in boosting consumption. While paying higher wages than you absolutely needed to might lower profits temporarily, it would lead to a more sustainable business and economy over time. If the motorcar was going to be a mass-produced product for typical Americans, not a plaything for the rich, Ford would strive to pay his workers enough so they could afford the products they worked on all day.
Ford, of course, was right. And the rest is industrial history. The $5 day didn’t kill Ford, or American capitalism, as many capitalists had warned. By 1916, profits doubled and sales continued to boom. “The payment of $5 a day for an eight-hour day was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made,” he said. By 1921, Ford had half the U.S. car market and, thanks to falling costs and rising wages, the price of a Model T stood at about half the level of per-capita income. Ford pioneered a massive new industry whose wages set the tone for the country and turned Detroit into a high-wage metropolis.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/henry-ford-understood-that-raising-wages-would-bring-him-more-profit

And before you bring it up, yes Henry was also a virulent racist and anti-semite and he wrote a book about Jews that was "inspirational" to Nazi's. He sure knew how to run business though.