• 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!

The wage problem in a nutshell

The real disconnect was Reagan's tax cuts.

Before Reagan the business owners and ceo's couldn't keep over $200,000 so it was much easier to invest in your company or workers.

After Reagan the wealthy found they could keep it all and they did.

Republicans and their wealthy donors have been working the tax code to their benefit every since.

View attachment 67384252


View attachment 67384253
Hey, I'm 100% all in for overhauling the tax code.

With over 74,000 pages of that convoluted crap - that isn't just Republican's, btw, plenty of it belongs to Democrats as well. It's 74,000+ pages of bloated government red tape that no two experts could ever possibly agree on in the first place.

Take your taxes to H&R Block, to Jackson Hewitt, to TurboTax, EY, or any of a score local tax services in your area and guess what? Not ONE will ever agree with the other about what your taxes should be. Heck, then have the IRS do it for you (if you dare) - and THEIRS won't jive with any of the others either.

The primary problem with the tax code begins with two totally opposing views about what is "fair":

Republicans (in general) want a flat tax - same rate to all, across the board. Everyone pays their fair share, the same % of their income (or some other basis*) as everyone else.
Democrats (in general) want a progressive tax - higher % rates to those who make more, lower % rates to those who make less. Favors lower wage earners and punishes higher wage earners.

Who's right? Well, in view of the above, tell us first for who's responsible for those 74,000+ pages of code - and why.

Me? 100% all in for a flat tax* - one that has NOTHING TO DO WITH INCOME or PROPERTY, strictly purchases. Flat rate on everything you buy. I'll even concede no tax for lower income people. $20k? $30k? More? They can buy all their essentials and pay no taxes at all on the purchases. A government that can tax your income, your property OWNS your income and your property.
 

Here are the actual tax rates per year.....Reagan's tax cuts hit in mid 80's

So look back to say 1979

I guarantee most every conservative in Congress would pass those tax rate again.....the democrats wouldnt touch them at all
Because EVERYONE pays.....and it starts at the lowest brackets
And there was no EIC.....and if those were passed with reasonable spending, we could actually start to pay down the debt
But there isnt a democrat alive who would vote for those rates (they would all get voted out of office)
Because the little people actually have to contribute also.....no FREE rides
 
So you're saying that:
  1. This idea is communism and/or Marxism, and thus bad because USSR/other communist countries.
I never called it good nor bad, I called out the multiple failures demonstrated in history of such economic systems.

  1. If everyone had enough to live a mostly comfortable life, there wouldn't be enough supplies to feed demand and thus we would have inflation.
Who get's to decide what this 'cost of living level' is, who gets to decide what 'a minimal but comfortable standard of living' is defined as?

At this moment, that which is considered 'a living wage' is being rapidly destroyed and degraded by inflation, as are everyone's wages.

As this minimum 'living wage' increases, it to contributes to inflationary pressures, so there's a bit of a feedback loop there.
Wages go up, inflations goes up reducing purchasing power, forcing wages to go up yet again.
 
I never called it good nor bad, I called out the multiple failures demonstrated in history of such economic systems.
I was trying to simplify, and assuming that you thought the results in those countries bad.

I disagree with you, by the way.

A living wage is not communism.


Who get's to decide what this 'cost of living level' is, who gets to decide what 'a minimal but comfortable standard of living' is defined as?

At this moment, that which is considered 'a living wage' is being rapidly destroyed and degraded by inflation, as are everyone's wages.

As this minimum 'living wage' increases, it to contributes to inflationary pressures, so there's a bit of a feedback loop there.
Wages go up, inflations goes up reducing purchasing power, forcing wages to go up yet again.
It'd be simple to say "the government", but it would probably be more accurate to say "Congress directs, the bureaucracy fills in the details".

But that is the implementation.

As I understand it, a living wage is simply a wage sufficient for those working at it to meet their basic needs.
So in a way, Food Stamps, the ACA, Social Security, and all those other government assistance programs are part of the minimum wage, since they exist to try and get people their basic needs.
 
I was trying to simplify, and assuming that you thought the results in those countries bad.

I disagree with you, by the way.

A living wage is not communism.
The government dictating what wages for jobs shall be is in fact the government controlling the means of production, which part of the definition of what Socialism / Communism.

It'd be simple to say "the government", but it would probably be more accurate to say "Congress directs, the bureaucracy fills in the details".
Which is part of why so many nations are in such a sad state of affairs, and why the corrupt DC bureaucratic swamp has far more control than it should, and often works against the best interests of the nation and electorate, their duty, and in their own interests instead, as bureaucracies are only interested in growing their power and control, and the corrupt DC swamp is no different than any other bureaucracy.

But that is the implementation.

As I understand it, a living wage is simply a wage sufficient for those working at it to meet their basic needs.
So in a way, Food Stamps, the ACA, Social Security, and all those other government assistance programs are part of the minimum wage, since they exist to try and get people their basic needs.
You are confusing what those programs are, by their very nature, and what they do, or are at least intended to do. Those are two different things.
 
The government dictating what wages for jobs shall be is in fact the government controlling the means of production, which part of the definition of what Socialism / Communism.
No.

The means of production are the tools, machines, factories.

Which is part of why so many nations are in such a sad state of affairs, and why the corrupt DC bureaucratic swamp has far more control than it should, and often works against the best interests of the nation and electorate, their duty, and in their own interests instead, as bureaucracies are only interested in growing their power and control, and the corrupt DC swamp is no different than any other bureaucracy.
It's the job of Congress, the Executive, and the courts to oversee them.

We can't have the things we do without a bureaucratic system to administer them.


You are confusing what those programs are, by their very nature, and what they do, or are at least intended to do. Those are two different things.
No, I'm pointing out that they all exist to provide basic needs, and the goal of a "living wage" is the same.

So, if support programs exist, the living wage can be lower, in theory.
 
No.

The means of production are the tools, machines, factories.
In an economy which is 80% service based? No, service based means people, and people means wages and benefits as the major sources of consideration.

It's the job of Congress, the Executive, and the courts to oversee them.
We can't have the things we do without a bureaucratic system to administer them.
While a fair enough observation, that doesn't mitigate or remediate the excessive control the bureaucracies have amassed unto themselves.

No, I'm pointing out that they all exist to provide basic needs, and the goal of a "living wage" is the same.
This doesn't change in the least what I observed in my last post about this.

So, if support programs exist, the living wage can be lower, in theory.
By extension, does this mean that if the government supports the workforce with enough money confiscated from others that there is no need for wages?
This starts to point out the problems with government redistribution and market distortion, especially in the job market, and how these programs are indeed in control of the means of production.
Thanks for helping me make my point all the more clearer. Much appreciated. More than what I could have asked for, really.
 
A living wage is not communism.

It's ironic how idiotically contradictory the right is. They say communism prevents prosperity for the people; yet they attack prosperity for the people claiming it's communism.
 
It's ironic how idiotically contradictory the right is. They say communism prevents prosperity for the people; yet they attack prosperity for the people claiming it's communism.
Wouldn't the 'attack prosperity for the people' be the left's constant 'wealth taxes' they wish to impose?
 
Let me provide a real life example of how government bureaucracy "helps" the American economy.

In Arizona we have sales tax on retail goods, as most states do. Not everything sold is subject to sales tax and I won't bother to get into the insanity of how all that is sorted out but in the interests of "serving the public need" our Department of Revenue allowed people to start filing their sales tax returns online a few years ago. Shortly after opening up that option they started REQUIRING returns to be filed on line. Initially the tax liability limit for being required to file online was high enough that many independent sellers (Ebay, etc) weren't going to be effected if they didn't want to use the online option. That threshold dropped year after year until now damned near everybody is REQUIRED to use the online portal. The problem is that a lot of people who want to comply with the rule struggle a LOT with the portal. Little old ladies that sell crafts at street fairs have to use the portal even though they MIGHT only sell $5000 worth of stuff all year. The portal requires a password change every 90 days. If you forget your password you have to go through a drawn out process to get it. The people that provide phone assistance, admittedly, are pretty good...if you can reach them.

I had one client, 85 years old, last year that sells stuff online. She pays a few hundred dollars sales tax every year and has to file online. She forgot her password. They sent the recovery link to her email address. She doesn't know the password to get into her Gmail account. Gmail sent their recovery text to her landline because all that had been asked for was a phone number. She called the DOR to get things sorted out and spent more than an hour with someone trying to walk her through the process. She can file the paper form in about 5 minutes but the digital stuff is just beyond her. She gave up trying to report.

I have another client that rents tents, tables, chairs and stuff. He rented stuff to a resort out here and the resort charged their customer for the event. His rental to the resort was audited and it was determined that he had to pay sales tax on the rental because the resort didn't have a sales tax license for "rentals". The resort only reported "hotel" and "restaurant". So the hotel charged the customer sales tax on the whole thing, presumably, and the state wanted to come after my client for MORE tax on his portion of the event even though the hotel had already included that stuff in their invoice! That's what bureaucracy does.

In a bureaucracy if your stapler runs out you need to requisition more staples from the supply office. If you have already used up your allotment of staples for the month you have to get a waiver from the waiver department to give to the supply department. The waiver department needs to review your document production inventory but that guy is on vacation so the review can't be completed until next week. The following week your document production is reviewed and it's determined that you are one document behind. You explain that the document shortfall is due to the need of a staple and the reviewer annotates your personnel file that you're a "complainer". Human resources gets the review and sets you up for an interview. During the interview you carefully and calmly break down the whole process up to this point. The HR interviewer goes into their office and an hour later you are escorted out of the building by security because your calm composure and concise recitation of events happens to be EXACTLY the way homicidal maniacs tend to react when confronted by authority figures, according to the latest HR seminar material presented by the federal department of bureaucracies.
 
No one is stealing anything from anyone. The money spent by the poor on luxuries, goods and services go back to the big companies and into the pockets of the wealthy.

Not sustainable. These big companies are competing with other big companies and no guarantee that big company will receive back from which they are paying out to the poor.
On top of that, it's not really making a profit on that money, but over time, actually losing money.
 
In an economy which is 80% service based? No, service based means people, and people means wages and benefits as the major sources of consideration.
Nneither people nor wages count as means of production.
people are the workers who use the means of production
And wages, assuming that's a thing, since this whole means of production phrase comes from Marx, are how those workers are compensated for their work.

While a fair enough observation, that doesn't mitigate or remediate the excessive control the bureaucracies have amassed unto themselves.
What you see as excessive bureacratic control, I see as congress and the other branches delegating the application of the laws they make and orders they give.
IF, and I repeat IF the bureaucracy has overstepped, it is their job to rein them in.
If there is an issue, the issue is not the bureaucracy itself, but those who are supposed to control it.

Claiming they can't is an excuse to not do their job.

This doesn't change in the least what I observed in my last post about this.
Your contention that the intended goal of these programs does not match the current results of their efforts?
Is there evidence to support that contention?
And if so, is the reason they are not accomplishing their goal due to insufficient funding?

By extension, does this mean that if the government supports the workforce with enough money confiscated from others that there is no need for wages?
This starts to point out the problems with government redistribution and market distortion, especially in the job market, and how these programs are indeed in control of the means of production.
Thanks for helping me make my point all the more clearer. Much appreciated. More than what I could have asked for, really.
If there was enough support from the government, there would be no need for those supported to work or earn wages. This already happens in cases of disability, where the person in question cannot work for one reason or another.
That said, most humans I've encountered can't handle doing nothing for too long. Entertainment can distract, but it's just distraction. Even people who are disabled to one degree or another will find hobbies at the least, to keep themselves busy.

Ideally, the support programs should be there to get people who have encountered issues back on their metaphorical feet.

Yet currently we have people working full time jobs at above minimum wage who cannot afford basic needs, and thus go to support programs for aid.
To me, this says that the minimum wage is too low.
 
Let me provide a real life example of how government bureaucracy "helps" the American economy.

In Arizona ...
Ha! Yeah, shame on all those big government, lefty Arizona liberals like Doug Ducey, Jan Brewer, Andy Biggs, JD Mesnard, Rusty Bowers.

Or, maybe try not voting for a bunch of people who are actively trying to starve to death and drown Arizona's government in a bathtub?

Government works wonders when it's actually funded. Shocker.
 
Ha! Yeah, shame on all those big government, lefty Arizona liberals like Doug Ducey, Jan Brewer, Andy Biggs, JD Mesnard, Rusty Bowers.

Or, maybe try not voting for a bunch of people who are actively trying to starve to death and drown Arizona's government in a bathtub?

Government works wonders when it's actually funded. Shocker.
Oh FFS.

Arizona is solidly purple. Tucson is about as blue as you can get.
 
Not sustainable. These big companies are competing with other big companies and no guarantee that big company will receive back from which they are paying out to the poor.
On top of that, it's not really making a profit on that money, but over time, actually losing money.
That's why big companies know to diversify their sources of profit. That is why billions of dollars are spent on advertising. Unless you want to bring in some kind big brother control on buying and spending then Instead you let capitalism fly and allow competition to sort that problem out. There should not be any guarantee, there only needs to be a market where goods and services can compete.
 
That's why big companies know to diversify their sources of profit. That is why billions of dollars are spent on advertising. Unless you want to bring in some kind big brother control on buying and spending then Instead you let capitalism fly and allow competition to sort that problem out. There should not be any guarantee, there only needs to be a market where goods and services can compete.

Not in the context given by you to which I responded. You are simply moving the goalposts wider.

You are talking about getting profit back another way....other than from the poor who is spending back into the economy. Their is no garrentee a company recouping anything back from the poor by economy spending.
 
You are talking about getting profit back another way....other than from the poor who is spending back into the economy. Their is no garrentee a company recouping anything back from the poor by economy spending.
Profiting huge profits only happens if there are huge profits to tax. You're fighting for huge inequality, looking for attacks on doing anything about it with no better suggestion. You're ignoring the basic problem causing it.
 
Nneither people nor wages count as means of production.
people are the workers who use the means of production
And wages, assuming that's a thing, since this whole means of production phrase comes from Marx, are how those workers are compensated for their work.
You are able to run production without a workforce?

What you see as excessive bureacratic control, I see as congress and the other branches delegating the application of the laws they make and orders they give.
IF, and I repeat IF the bureaucracy has overstepped, it is their job to rein them in.
If there is an issue, the issue is not the bureaucracy itself, but those who are supposed to control it.
Seems you are noting a difference which makes no difference. The issue is the corrupt and entrenched federal bureaucracy.

Claiming they can't is an excuse to not do their job.
Perfect description of Congress, if you ask me.

Your contention that the intended goal of these programs does not match the current results of their efforts?
Is there evidence to support that contention?
And if so, is the reason they are not accomplishing their goal due to insufficient funding?
Throwing money at the problem isn't going to resolve the problem, it will serve only to further grow the problem.

If there was enough support from the government, there would be no need for those supported to work or earn wages. This already happens in cases of disability, where the person in question cannot work for one reason or another.
That said, most humans I've encountered can't handle doing nothing for too long. Entertainment can distract, but it's just distraction. Even people who are disabled to one degree or another will find hobbies at the least, to keep themselves busy.

Ideally, the support programs should be there to get people who have encountered issues back on their metaphorical feet.

Yet currently we have people working full time jobs at above minimum wage who cannot afford basic needs, and thus go to support programs for aid.
To me, this says that the minimum wage is too low.
Why is it that minim wage is only considered as the part of the situation which can be increased for improvement?
Why is it that the worker increasing their skills and therefore their value and earnings more than minimum wage is never considered as a means for improvement?
Minimum wage jobs are a working career starting point, not a working career and not a working career end point.
This is the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' in action.

So how prevalent is this minimum wage issue?

In 2020, 73.3 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 55.5 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 247,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 865,000 workers had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.1 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.5 percent of all hourly paid workers.​

"these 1.1 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.5 percent of all hourly paid workers."
This minimum wage issue appears to be a "1.5 percent of all hourly paid workers." issue, so not something which appears to be a high priority issue.

All those clamoring about this issue being a priority issue are little more than a Tempest in a tea pot.
 
Let me provide a real life example of how government bureaucracy "helps" the American economy.

In Arizona we have sales tax on retail goods, as most states do. Not everything sold is subject to sales tax and I won't bother to get into the insanity of how all that is sorted out but in the interests of "serving the public need" our Department of Revenue allowed people to start filing their sales tax returns online a few years ago. Shortly after opening up that option they started REQUIRING returns to be filed on line. Initially the tax liability limit for being required to file online was high enough that many independent sellers (Ebay, etc) weren't going to be effected if they didn't want to use the online option. That threshold dropped year after year until now damned near everybody is REQUIRED to use the online portal. The problem is that a lot of people who want to comply with the rule struggle a LOT with the portal. Little old ladies that sell crafts at street fairs have to use the portal even though they MIGHT only sell $5000 worth of stuff all year. The portal requires a password change every 90 days. If you forget your password you have to go through a drawn out process to get it. The people that provide phone assistance, admittedly, are pretty good...if you can reach them.

I had one client, 85 years old, last year that sells stuff online. She pays a few hundred dollars sales tax every year and has to file online. She forgot her password. They sent the recovery link to her email address. She doesn't know the password to get into her Gmail account. Gmail sent their recovery text to her landline because all that had been asked for was a phone number. She called the DOR to get things sorted out and spent more than an hour with someone trying to walk her through the process. She can file the paper form in about 5 minutes but the digital stuff is just beyond her. She gave up trying to report.
Reporting online requirement is just the bureaucracy demanding that things are made easier for them at everyone else's jumping through hoops. I wonder if any bureaucrats were 'trimmed' back because of the greater efficiencies? I rather doubt it. I suspect that more were hired to support the new online process.

I have another client that rents tents, tables, chairs and stuff. He rented stuff to a resort out here and the resort charged their customer for the event. His rental to the resort was audited and it was determined that he had to pay sales tax on the rental because the resort didn't have a sales tax license for "rentals". The resort only reported "hotel" and "restaurant". So the hotel charged the customer sales tax on the whole thing, presumably, and the state wanted to come after my client for MORE tax on his portion of the event even though the hotel had already included that stuff in their invoice! That's what bureaucracy does.

In a bureaucracy if your stapler runs out you need to requisition more staples from the supply office. If you have already used up your allotment of staples for the month you have to get a waiver from the waiver department to give to the supply department. The waiver department needs to review your document production inventory but that guy is on vacation so the review can't be completed until next week. The following week your document production is reviewed and it's determined that you are one document behind. You explain that the document shortfall is due to the need of a staple and the reviewer annotates your personnel file that you're a "complainer". Human resources gets the review and sets you up for an interview. During the interview you carefully and calmly break down the whole process up to this point. The HR interviewer goes into their office and an hour later you are escorted out of the building by security because your calm composure and concise recitation of events happens to be EXACTLY the way homicidal maniacs tend to react when confronted by authority figures, according to the latest HR seminar material presented by the federal department of bureaucracies.
And the sole purpose for the above ridiculousness is so that more bureaucrats are required to run this process and that nothing can happen with bureaucratic intervention, it's nothing more than a stranglehold on productivity.

Bureaucracies are overhead and need to be tightly controlled, reduced wherever possible / practical, in order to control overhead expenses, yet it rarely happens, especially not in government, especially not in federal government. The federal government is far too expensive for the needs that it serves.
 
Not in the context given by you to which I responded. You are simply moving the goalposts wider.

You are talking about getting profit back another way....other than from the poor who is spending back into the economy. Their is no garrentee a company recouping anything back from the poor by economy spending.
Then the company is shit and deserves to die. Are you one of those who support government holding your hand while you do business because you do not want to take a risk with what the market provides. Your idea is that companies should exploit and underpay just so a big business can have security instead of actually competing fairly on a market with goods and services worth having rather than crap that can be pushed because it is so cheap because labour costs were so minimal. The poor must suffer so you can have security of getting your mcdonalds. How pathetic.
 


'nuff said in response to that.

Of course, because you have shit as far as argument, just like ever right winger, No fact support your scummy lies

yeah, keep sucking billionaire D while majority of this country barely scrape by. But let me guess, you are well off and have no empathy so why give a shit about anybody else.

Before the standard moronic deflection, I'm doing well myself but unlike right wingers, I'm not selfish and I have empathy and every problem in this country is because of greed, not the moronic right wing lies of liberals, people of color and immigrants
 
Contrary to Republican views, wages can be too low. Most people like there to be some idea that the American economy can have prosperity somewhat shared so that at least most Americans are prosperous, not only 10% super-prosperous instead.

But, wages are set almost entirely - outside the minimum wage and minimal laws - by the dictates of the owners. This would itself result in too-low wages. Why wouldn't it?

One alternative would be for the government to dictate wages. This would raise them - but is a very unpopular idea and one with admitted flaws, so it has essentially no chance to happen.

The next thing to offset those low wages is 'the marketplace'. The idea that if employer 1 wants to pay very low wages, that employer 2 will offer a higher wage to 'compete' with employer 1.

Thing is, there is some truth to that but it's of very modest benefit. It SEEMS like it is - because it exists more in an environment that HAS decent wages. But by itself it wouldn't have much effect, in an environment where workers are disposable and there are a pool of unemployed people willing to take less. Looking at how much effect this has on wages for food gatherers comes to mind, for example. That COULD be nearly all employees.

I think people are more comfortable with an idea of some 'magic hand' ensuring fair wages, than any human direction. They don't really trust anyone to run the issue, and want to think 'the market will just take care of it'.

They forget that 'the market' has a very wide variation in what's possible, and those variations include both very low and higher wages, that it's a bit complicated with multiple factors.

People don't really appreciate just how much this mechanism of solely owner-set wages keeps wages down - because historically, wages rose proportionally with the wealth created, but that changed to wear the wealth created had no effect on wages. As the wealth created doubled and doubled again, wages remained flat; all of the increase went into owners' pockets and inequality skyrocketed.

I've seen it suggested that if this change hadn't happened, the average salary would be double what it is. People don't notice because it isn't a pay cut, but the owners sure notice as their wealth balloons.

A problem in people understanding this is that they think any question about fair wages means questioning the entire system of private enterprise - that it means owners not making profits, a collapse of the whole system. It doesn't, but people think it does and resist any question about wages.

The final main issue that could affect wages is the only one that adds some power to employees - labor organization, like unions. But unions have been nearly eliminated in the private sector, with few exceptions such as the handful of Amazon workers who are just organizing. A third of workers used to be organized. As of 1979 there were 21 million union members - the change I mentioned was immediately after that.

That's the fundamental issue with wages. People would like them to be 'decent', but there is no mechanism to ensure that, so a system without that mechanism is deciding them - and deciding to keep them perhaps half of what they 'would be' under historical norms.

We have no clear alternative system. Democrats aren't running regularly on a 'new system for fair wages' I know of. If you asked a person how to ensure fair wages, I doubt almost any would have much answer. Yet we have political forces fighting to keep them down - and succeeding at that. That in a nutshell is the wage problem.

A chart showing the wishbone effect of the change:

wagescompensation-1200x1093.png


A chart showing what Americans think wealth distribution is and should be versus what it is (this is pretty old now, it's now much worse):

outofbalance.jpg

It's a bit silly to use Mother Jones as a source. Just try thinking like a capitalist, not a socialist. Yes, there is and should be a minimum wage, however it should be be a so-called livable wage. It should be market based just as in your one employer offering a higher wage then another employer example. Unskilled labor in most cases is not worth $15.00 an hour. Payroll is in most cases the single biggest part of overhead costs. For instance a $15 an hour burger flipper is not profitable to his or her employer unless they up the price of a burger to at least twice what it is now.
 
Last edited:
Of course, because you have shit as far as argument, just like ever right winger, No fact support your scummy lies

yeah, keep sucking billionaire D while majority of this country barely scrape by. But let me guess, you are well off and have no empathy so why give a shit about anybody else.

Before the standard moronic deflection, I'm doing well myself but unlike right wingers, I'm not selfish and I have empathy and every problem in this country is because of greed, not the moronic right wing lies of liberals, people of color and immigrants
see....here we disagree

most of peoples problems are from piss poor decisions in life

having kids too young
getting in debt problems
not taking education seriously enough
just being LAZY
not willing to take the risks that others take that do get ahead

As long as the person has no physical or mental issues, the VAST MAJORITY of people can learn a trade skill and earn a decent living
 
Back
Top Bottom