That's funny...wealth was concentrated at the top in the 90s when we had unprecedented prosperity.
I don't think that redistribution is conducive to a growing, thriving economy. If you do, the USA is surely not the country for you. Perhaps Australia?
That's funny...wealth was concentrated at the top in the 90s when we had unprecedented prosperity.
I don't think that redistribution is conducive to a growing, thriving economy. If you do, the USA is surely not the country for you. Perhaps Australia?
The people who make millions don't spend as much of their income as does the working class, that's why the economy is not recovering very quickly.
Than you don't give a damn about the economy. Fortunately most of the people that voted in the presidential election do care about our economy.
still fixated on %, I see. the people who make more $$ spend more $$$. If I get really bored, I'll try to find some stats. but I would be willing to bet that the top 10% spends more actual dollars than the other 90% combined.
You will have to in order to prove your case, or admit it was all a bunch of BS.
really? you haven't done so in order to prove yours. therefore by your own logic...what you've been posting was all a bunch of BS
"Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work"
The Failure of Supply-Side Economics | Center for American Progress
"Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work"
The Failure of Supply-Side Economics | Center for American Progress
You will have to in order to prove your case, or admit it was all a bunch of BS.
Maybe if you live in a cardboard box or in a shelter.
It has been shown, with actual numbers, that living on minimum wage is not only possible, but affords some luxuries and does not mean living in a cardboard box. It may mean sharing their apartment/house with a room mate or two, but that is hardly a cardboard box.
Is there any proof that those earning only minimum wage have done anything to earn more? I'm sure some have, but I don't see where the vast majority of them have. I have seen, several times, including myself, that those who start out at minimum wage, if they prove they are worth more, get raises and even better paying positions.
One of the best things we could do would be to do away with laws and unions that make companies keep undesirable and low/non-productive workers. Many companies are no longer directly hiring people into full time positions because of the cost of mandated benefits. Once full time, an employee is protected from being fired, unless they commit certain acts, such as theft, by laws and unions. Companies are forced to keep low/non-productive workers and that limits what they can offer to desired workers.
Under current law (at least in Texas), the only sure way to weed out undesirables is to hire part time at minimum wage or near it. This allows them to evaluate the worker before either getting rid of the, maintaining them at current level, or promoting/giving them a raise. If a worker under performs or has a bad attitude, their hours get cut until they quit. If they perform only at the minimum required level and their attitude, while not great, is also not a hindrance, then they are kept on at current levels. If they show good performance and attitude, they have the opportunity to move up when positions become available and can receive a raise to encourage them to stay until a position comes open.
I cannot say all companies, but most that I have ever seen in action, do value good employees. But, they are limited on what they can offer the good employee because they have to carry the burden of bad employees that they cannot rid themselves of very easily.
Of course, this only addresses one aspect of the picture, the loss of higher paying unskilled/low skilled jobs also plays a role.
Only when minimum wage no longer allows anything above base level subsistence should it be raised. That level should be reserved for Welfare. We are no where near minimum wage requiring a person to live at a bare minimum level.
This is total bologna. Companies, union or not, are not forced to keep poor quality workers. Most workers are non-union and non-contract, in other words, "at will" and can be fired for any reason as long as it doesn't violate civil rights laws. In other words, they can't be fired for their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. If they're in an "at will" state, they don't even have to document it. If they're not, they just have to document the worker's transgressions, which don't have to be severe. If a worker is more than 5 minutes late at least 6 times, you can fire him at your discretion. And it's easy to document. And stop spreading the lie that union workers cannot be fired. Unions negotiate an appeals process that gives a worker the chance to defend himself from accusations. This is to protect people from trumped-up firings, but a union won't prevent a bad employee from being fired. If he's late all the time; if he does bad quality work, if he harasses people; if he wastes company time on personal matters, he can and should be fired. It's misinformation that an employer gets stuck with bad employees. Stop spreading the lies.
Evenstar said:Well to be fair, the wealth- so called- in the 90s fueling this "prosperity" was largely debt funded.
This is total bologna. Companies, union or not, are not forced to keep poor quality workers. Most workers are non-union and non-contract, in other words, "at will" and can be fired for any reason as long as it doesn't violate civil rights laws. In other words, they can't be fired for their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. If they're in an "at will" state, they don't even have to document it. If they're not, they just have to document the worker's transgressions, which don't have to be severe. If a worker is more than 5 minutes late at least 6 times, you can fire him at your discretion. And it's easy to document. And stop spreading the lie that union workers cannot be fired. Unions negotiate an appeals process that gives a worker the chance to defend himself from accusations. This is to protect people from trumped-up firings, but a union won't prevent a bad employee from being fired. If he's late all the time; if he does bad quality work, if he harasses people; if he wastes company time on personal matters, he can and should be fired. It's misinformation that an employer gets stuck with bad employees. Stop spreading the lies.
Luna Tick said:Unions negotiate an appeals process that gives a worker the chance to defend himself from accusations. This is to protect people from trumped-up firings, but a union won't prevent a bad employee from being fired.
How Americans Make And Spend Their Money - Forbes.com
Average annual expenditures
Poorest 20%: $17,837
Middle 20%: $36,980
Richest 20%: $83,710
How Americans Make And Spend Their Money - Forbes.com
Average household income before taxes
Poorest 20%: $9,168
Middle 20%: $41,614
Richest 20%: $132,158
the richest spend 63.34% of their annual incomes
the poor spend a whopping 194.56% of their annual income (so where does that extra 94.56% come from? it is given to them by the govt from $$$$ taken from the other 80%)
so, as you can see, the top 20% outspends the bottom 20% by a factor of 4.6X (despite being robbed by the govt to nearly double the amount of $$$$ the bottom 20% spends)
Nope. Living on Minimum Wage is almost impossible. Especially for anyone who has any sort of bills (electric, cable, gas, etc...). Of course, the Minimum Wage was never really intended to be for people to live on for extended periods of time, and definitely not with a family. People who want to see the Minimum Wage as a Living Wage seem to miss that point more often than not.
My ass they won't.
Now multiply those figures by the percentage of population each income group represents and you will have figured it out.
The first minimum wage passed in 1968 adjusted for inflation was 10.58 per hour.
Minimum wage has always been about protecting the bottom of the economic pyramid from destitute povery.
What says that destitute poverty is not all that they have earned? What says the government has a responsibility to provide anything above what the market says a worker should earn? Is there anything that proves any one should be protected from destitute poverty if that is all that they have earned?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?