- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 38,333
- Reaction score
- 44,404
- Location
- Atlanta
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
300 something posts in this thread and I am curious if we are ever going to talk about actual economics.
Actually if you have a degree and a full time job yes you are not only keeping up with inflation but have passed it.Liberals/leftists/Democrats understand perfectly that mechanization has been the driver of productivity. The loss in earning power is too steep to be explained solely on mechanization. The stagnation of the minimum wage cannot be explained by mechanization. Wages have not kept up even with inflation.
which is way cheaper than them not having a job at all.When the HR departments of highly profitable corporations have printouts ready for wage workers on how to apply for food stamps and housing assistance call it what it is government subsidy of corporate wealth.
Someone who brings 10 dollars of value to a company is not worth 15 dollars. It’s really a simple concept.
The purpose of a business is to make money. You don’t do that by paying your employees more then they bring in.
I can’t believe this needs to be explained to people.
non sequiturI am already aware. Also, citizens get to vote for representatives. Now you know.
you bought it up so facts state otherwise.That's cool. Not germane to the topic, but congratulations on knowing that bit of irrelevant trivia anyway.
Not really but congrats on finally admitting you support dictatorship governemnt have a nice day you lose.There is compelling evidence for their existence, if that is what you mean.
if you believe in free markets then yes. since you don't and believe in dictatorships then well there you have it.Do you think it is unfair for us to leverage our capital to negotiate higher starting wages for our members?
Lets take the top and bottom of economics here in the US. The left and Biden want to tax the hell out of businesses making more than $400,000. If he would, they will raise the price of their product, and even the most poor will have to pay the higher price.
Then the low end. Biden and the left wingers want a $15 minimum wage for burger flippers so they can have a "living wage". What they dont understand is working in a burger joint IS NOT a life's work. It is for teenagers, and maybe old people to add to their income. If you force $15 wages on a burger joint, one of three things will happen. They will go out of business, they will fire people and go to kiosks, or burgers will cost $7.50.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Reagan coined the term. Get a grip. It's supply side economics. "[Under supply side economics] wealth will trickle down" --- Ronald Reagan.
Trickle down theory, supply side, Reaganomics, are words for the same thing.
Get a grip on realityl
Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically targets taxes on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2]
The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[3][4]
Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[citation needed] Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth.[5][6] Trickle-down economics has been widely criticized, particularly by left-wing, centre-left and moderate politicians and economists, but also some right-wing politicians.
So in your world companies should just pay people what ever you feel is a fair wage no matter what they actually contribute to the earnings of that company.If those positions are not contributing more than $15/hr to the company, then they are unnecessary. Perhaps those companies will cut costs by letting go of those employees and simply leaving their burgers unflipped, their shelves unstocked, and let customers leave without checking out first.
Companies that cannot generate more than $15/hr/employee will not be able to survive in a country with a $15 min wage, and those companies will go under. Their assets will be liquidated to better-run companies, and the demand previously filled by those companies will lead to growth for their better-run competitors.
Leopold II made quite a bit of money off of his business model as well. Nevertheless, it is not a good fit for my country.
Not up to me alone, no. But it is up to me and my fellow shareholders of the United States.
Our organization has a charter that allows us to vote on people to represent our interests, and those representatives are empowered to set the minimum wage, as well as the taxes charged for the military protection, infrastructure and business opportunities that we provide. Many of us feel that companies that cannot generate more than $15/hr/employee do not meet our quality standards, and have no place within our organization.
once again facts do not care about your feelings.Trickle Down Economics Does Not Exist -- The Benefits of Capitalism Do
One hundred years of false attacks cannot obscure the genius of Capitalismwww.forbes.com
There is No Such Thing as Trickle-Down Economics | Steven Horwitz
No market advocate ever used this phrase. That's for a reason. It's not what we favor.fee.org
No where is trickle down economic actually taught in any book or any other economics class.
Why attack ‘trickle-down economics?’ It doesn't exist – and never has done
Now and again, intelligent people, politicians and columnists attack ‘trickle-down economics’ in the mistaken belief that it exists. Or that it ever existed. In his classic book, Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell gives a brief history. Here’s the excerpt: There have been many economic theories over...www.spectator.co.uk
once again facts destroy leftist arguments.
This is called a strawman argument that leftist use on a consistent basis. No one has ever argued this.
Your right it is a joke. leftist prove they have no concept of economics by arguing a strawman that they created.
thanks for proving my point. leftist for years ever since FDR has been referring to something that doesn't exist anywhere in the world of economics.
Just because you don’t think it’s fair doesn’t make it so.Labor in general never gets paid a fair share of the profit they make for the corporation. It's gotten worse in the last 40 years. Our pay and rewards systems are completely out of whack and completely unfair to the worker.
No the proper thing to do is to pay them what the job they are doing is worth.It's pretty easy to understand. If you are paying someone more than they are generating, and you don't have an expectation that they will start generating more than they cost within the timeframe you require, then you will be better off just letting them go.
That really is a pretty simple concept. Do you disagree with that?
non sequitur
you bought it up so facts state otherwise.
Not really but congrats on finally admitting you support dictatorship governemnt have a nice day you lose.
if you believe in free markets then yes.
you should probably go live in a dictatorship for a while and see how well your theory works.
try NK for 6 months. if you manage to stay alive come back and tell us how great it is.
No the proper thing to do is to pay them what the job they are doing is worth.
But you are right it is a simple concept. That’s why I don’t understand why you are struggling with it so much.
But you described it incorrectly. Hence why it is clear you are struggling.I'm obviously not struggling with it, since I just described it to you.
I'll try to make it simple for you.
Suppose you are paying someone $10/hr. The labor that they do brings in $12/hr of revenue for your company. That means they are pulling their weight, plus an extra $2/hr, which means that having them on board is making money for your company.
If you couldn't pay them less than $15/hr, and they were only bringing in $12/hr, you would actually be losing $3/hr by having them remain in your company. Obviously that is not sustainable.
Do you understand?
First of all I am not a republican. Haven’t voted for a single republican in almost a decade and a half.
And the reason that a CEO is able to do those things because they have the bargaining power to get that in their contract. They have that power based on the performance they have had with other companies and the potential they provide to a company. A great CEO can turn a company around or greatly expand their profits.
A great burger flipper or a average one has virtually zero difference in the overall profitability of a company.
But it is sad seeing your naked jealousy of those who have been more successful then you.
You should probably let you hate go and just work on improving your situation.
But you described it incorrectly. Hence why it is clear you are struggling.
I don't care what other people make. It has no bearing on what i can do and what I can make.
why are you jealous of other peoples success?
YOu have no idea what I believe. you simply make shit up.
If a ceo is doing good for his company then yes i don't care if they are making good money.
If a CEo is doing good for their company it means i am doing well for myself. It means i am getting
raises and promotions etc all of which increases my income.
on the other hand if a CEo is doing bad then no i don't believe they should get these huge buy out clauses.
why? because they are failing. they should not be paid for their failure.
it is up to the board of directors to write that into the contract with the CEO.
so your projection arguments are just that projections. they are your issue and no one else's.
all you leftist are the same mindless drone with 0 capacity to think for yourselves.
which is why everyone of you repeat the same lousy talking points every time.
The author of the article is a partisan parroting your opinion. We're talking about 'supply side economics'.once again facts do not care about your feelings.Trickle Down Economics Does Not Exist -- The Benefits of Capitalism Do
One hundred years of false attacks cannot obscure the genius of Capitalismwww.forbes.com
There is No Such Thing as Trickle-Down Economics | Steven Horwitz
No market advocate ever used this phrase. That's for a reason. It's not what we favor.fee.org
No where is trickle down economic actually taught in any book or any other economics class.
Why attack ‘trickle-down economics?’ It doesn't exist – and never has done
Now and again, intelligent people, politicians and columnists attack ‘trickle-down economics’ in the mistaken belief that it exists. Or that it ever existed. In his classic book, Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell gives a brief history. Here’s the excerpt: There have been many economic theories over...www.spectator.co.uk
once again facts destroy leftist arguments.
The quote is David Stockman's, a republican. a reagan cabinet director ( I believe he was Interior Sec)This is called a strawman argument that leftist use on a consistent basis. No one has ever argued this.
Incompetent argument: generality.Your right it is a joke. leftist prove they have no concept of economics by arguing a strawman that they created.
thanks for proving my point. leftist for years ever since FDR has been referring to something that doesn't exist anywhere in the world of economics.
You have to remember that you are talking to someone that believes Trickle Down Economics actually work, so.....300 something posts in this thread and I am curious if we are ever going to talk about actual economics.
So you believe in trickle up poverty?You have to remember that you are talking to someone that believes Trickle Down Economics actually work, so.....
Nope. Any other questions?So you believe in trickle up poverty?
If you haven't gotten a raise in 40 years then you are doing something wrong. I know in the past 20 years i have gotten plenty of raises and i have nearly doubled to triple myThat's where you're wrong -- it DOES have a bearing on how much you make. That's why the middle class hasn't seen a raise in 40 years, why CEOs get a 400% raise.
Christ Almighty, you simply know nothing.
I don't care about your lame explanations about why CEOs make so much money. And it really has nothing to do with it this debate -- the inequitable distribution of wealth between the rich and poor is what we are really discussing, not your pitiful rationalizations for filthy rich corporate executives.
I know you feel obligated as a serf to defend the wealth of your rich Repug feudal masters. After all, they are your intellectual and moral superiors. But try to have a little more dignity going forward. The way you lick their butts is truly pitiful.
The pathetic bonuses the average worker gets you when a company is doing "well" is a joke. Corporations hire exactly the number of people they need and that's all. And if you complain about your salary and benefits, you're gone. There is absolutely no loyalty in the corporate world, you will be fired and replaced at a moment's notice.
Yes, the board of directors is an inbred, back-scratching club of rich guys. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours in the future. That's how it works. Everyone gets a piece of the pie, just like the Mafia. Kind of like the Trump family, but more competent.
No i don't read whatever nonsense you do. I read facts and information on how things work.You just don't get it, you simply don't read enough about these things. That's why I've already corrected you multiple times in this thread.
The author of the article is a partisan parroting your opinion. We're talking about 'supply side economics'.
You have presented no facts.
The quote is David Stockman's, a republican. a reagan cabinet director ( I believe he was Interior Sec)
The argument is about supply side economics, which is a theory proffered by Milton Friedman and the neoliberal/neoclassical schools. It is not relied on much by economists because most economists uphold it as bunk economics.
Incompetent argument: generality.
We get it, You don't like the term 'trickle down economics'., nor do right wingers, all of whose arguments you have presented, they are partisan so naturally they are not going to like the term. I admit it is a pejorative, but it is a deserved pejorative, as supply side economics is bunk..
No the author is presenting facts. I already told you what supply side economics is. Supply side economics is not trickle down economics.
No the author is presenting facts. I already told you what supply side economics is. Supply side economics is not trickle down economics.
this is why the OP is correct. Leftist have no clue what they are talking about.
Then that is David Stockman's wrong opinion. There is no such thing has trickle down economics taught in any major economic school. I gave you at least 5 articles that all say you are wrong.
Yet it isn't bunk economics and gave us the massive economic boom from the early 80's-2000. i would say 20 years is a pretty good proven format.
the only time it really stalled is when clinton over raised taxes and admitted it and had to roll his tax hikes back.
Your projection fallacies are your issue and no one else's.
YOu keep repeating it but well facts do not care about your feelings.
I honeslty don't give a shit what wiki said. YOu can't even use wiki as a source in a college term paper so why do you think it has any credibility here?
The fact is that supply side economics is a real thing. it works and works well. By lowering taxes and restrictions on the ability for people to open businesses
and open doors so people are able to create new businesses and enter the market more effectively you produce more wealth and prosperity for everyone.
That is exactly the stance that reagan took and that clinton was forced to admit worked. Obama stalled the economy with his heavy handed regulations that caused
trillions of dollars in costs to private businesses. you want t know why businesses didn't invest in the obama economy and they were holding onto over 3 trillion dollars of liquid capital?
because there was little benefit to invest into it. The costs of investing were too high.
You want to know why they opened up their pocket books under trump? because trump undid most of obama's heavy handed regulations that was stopping all sorts of businesses from opening
and expanding.
Your problem is you don't understand supply side economics so you can't really argue something you don't understand.
Your strawman argument is that supply side economics is only for the rich it isn't. that is why you lose this argument.