Why would big CEOs be democrats?

[Samwise]

That sounds correct to me.

So "income inequality" means nothing to me. My skills are worth what they're worth regardless of what some billionaire earns.

 

[SDET]

So "income inequality" means nothing to me. My skills are worth what they're worth regardless of what some billionaire earns.

Not unless that billionaire becomes a trillionaire. Billions are not enough to affect the equation.

 

[Samwise]

Not unless that billionaire becomes a trillionaire. Billions are not enough to affect the equation.

And if the billionaire becomes a trillionaire, my skills are still worth what they're worth, right?

 

[SDET]

And if the billionaire becomes a trillionaire, my skills are still worth what they're worth, right?

If they are sucking that much money out of the economy, the result would be a great depression. In that case, you get unworkable extremes.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Because they are patriots first and capitalists second and understand very well that the health of most businesses depend of the health of the common people and Democrats are for the common people.

Democrats are for whom? Good god, when I believed that, i too was a Democrat. But that is a lie of herculean size.

 

[Samwise]

If they are sucking that much money out of the economy, the result would be a great depression. In that case, you get unworkable extremes.

Sucking money out of the economy? What, do you think they take the money they earn and throw it into a bonfire? Seriously? Learn some economics.

 

[Robertinfremont]

And if the billionaire becomes a trillionaire, my skills are still worth what they're worth, right?

There are studies of the rich. And the studies prove that the wealth is mostly locked up in stocks. And Real Estate. Course owning so many valued stocks mean buyers will snap them up to convert to cash.

 

[Samwise]

There are studies of the rich. And the studies prove that the wealth is mostly locked up in stocks. And Real Estate. Course owning so many valued stocks mean buyers will snap them up to convert to cash.

The money is "locked up in stocks" huh?

Does that mean that the person gave the money to someone in exchange for the stocks?

Economics, people. Money doesn't ever just disappear. It is simply transferred from one person to the next.

 

[eohrnberger]

My boss would give me a raise? Why?

Why would my boss's competitor pay me anything more than minimum wage?

You boss would give you a raise to keep you in his employ, to keep you from going to another company which would offer you more.

We are now in a tight labor market indicative of the historically low unemployment and high number of unfilled positions, I heard some 7 million jobs unfilled, which is high demand, as a result we are seeing real wage growth.

Flooding the labor market with low cost workers would undercut that, hence the need for border security and a supportive immigration public policy.

I haven't heard an assessment of US worker productivity lately, but my notion is that it is still one of the highest around, and at a competitive price in spite of the raising wages.

My thinking would be to keep it as it is for now, and allow the wage increases, I mean, after all, isn't that what most reasonable people would want?

And if you are enjoying increased wages, enjoy it now while you can. Economic cycles being what they are, it is surely something that won't continue indefinitely. I don't believe that anyone can realistically accurately predict how long it will last.

What many seem to misunderstand, I don't think there's many who fault others for their hard earned success. Unearned success, crony capitalism, well, that is an entirely different matter.

So my skills are worth what they're worth regardless of what some billionaire earns?

Indeed they are, as there's a market for the skills you can render to an employer, with some skills being rare and very valuable, and a bunch of skills that are more prevalent and commensurately less valuable in their market.

 

[eohrnberger]

The money is "locked up in stocks" huh?

Does that mean that the person gave the money to someone in exchange for the stocks?

Economics, people. Money doesn't ever just disappear. It is simply transferred from one person to the next.

Amazing how simply things get lost so easily.

Money paid for stocks are used by that company to invest and grow, eventually providing the buyer of those stocks a return o their money, to the benefit of the company as well as the stock owner (and indirectly to all the people who work at that company as well as all the customers of that company).

There are companies that are mismanaged and lose money, don't grow, and, perhaps, will even go bankrupt, resulting in the person who bought those stocks in losing some or all of their money. But life has always been a gamble, with risk. There's no such thing as a sure thing.

Capitalism, being the most efficient and effective allocator of scare resources, will always perform better if left with minimal government interference and confiscation. But some people don't like that idea, that people can make decisions of with whom and how to spend their money, and insist that government knows better (it doesn't), and demand greater government power to force their idea of 'wealth equality' and 'income equality', damaging the market's ability to be optimal. Do please note this is not an endorsement of an unregulated capitalistic system. Some regulations are required, as capitalism would still in the hands of flawed people (no such thing as an non-flawed human).

 

[Robertinfremont]

The money is "locked up in stocks" huh?

Does that mean that the person gave the money to someone in exchange for the stocks?

Economics, people. Money doesn't ever just disappear. It is simply transferred from one person to the next.

What is your problem? As an example, Jeff Bezos of Amazon had little cash until he sold his Amazon Stock. He finally became a millionaire when he sold stock.

Yes, someone just decided to buy Amazon Stock. That is how it works. And I did not come close to saying Money disappeared.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Amazing how simply things get lost so easily.

Money paid for stocks are used by that company to invest and grow, eventually providing the buyer of those stocks a return o their money, to the benefit of the company as well as the stock owner (and indirectly to all the people who work at that company as well as all the customers of that company).

There are companies that are mismanaged and lose money, don't grow, and, perhaps, will even go bankrupt, resulting in the person who bought those stocks in losing some or all of their money. But life has always been a gamble, with risk. There's no such thing as a sure thing.

Capitalism, being the most efficient and effective allocator of scare resources, will always perform better if left with minimal government interference and confiscation. But some people don't like that idea, that people can make decisions of with whom and how to spend their money, and insist that government knows better (it doesn't), and demand greater government power to force their idea of 'wealth equality' and 'income equality', damaging the market's ability to be optimal. Do please note this is not an endorsement of an unregulated capitalistic system. Some regulations are required, as capitalism would still in the hands of flawed people (no such thing as an non-flawed human).

That is correct. Well said.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Republicans are ignorant desperate folk who have to scrape and save all of their hard earned dollars just to survive and don't have any left for social programs.

So you're saying the Republicans are underdogs? If anything its the Democrats that support the underdogs so if somebody's an underdog it makes sense they would be a Democrat not a Republican.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Or when FDR outlawed the possession of gold money and forced everyone to use government issued fiat money? How'd that work out for the common man who had his life savings in gold coins?

It work out just fine for him. He would exchange his gold coins for paper cash.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Because being a "Democrat" helps get things done. Let's not forget that President Trump was a "democrat CEO" until he ran as a Republican. The Dems loved him and wooed him for his money. In return, he got the things he needed.

Alright, how about Regan? Before he was President he was a very successful actor and no doubt very wealthy.

 

[DebateChallenge]

?????
Wow i missed this one, when did this become an imaginary talking point LMAO

the answer to your question would be because your post is a lie and its made up

My post is a lie? Tell that to Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, both democrats.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Alright, how about Regan? Before he was President he was a very successful actor and no doubt very wealthy.

Reagan also ran the Actors Guild and had two terms as a highly successful Governor.

 

[Robertinfremont]

My post is a lie? Tell that to Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, both democrats.

Gates has supported both Republicans as well as Democrats. He is definitely not for the wealth tax proposed.

 

[Conaeolos]

Why would big CEOs be democrats? There are some big heads of some major corporations that are democratic. The reason I think it would be peculiar for such people to be democrats is because democrats tend to favor the working class people and the underdogs, not the big CEOs. Its silly to belong to a party that doesn't support big corporations and big multi million or multi billion dollar CEOs when you are such a CEO.

Leftist policies, excluding the pure Marxist types, are in fact more favourable to the ultra-rich than the free market.

Example 1: High taxes & High regulations restrict income mobility and increase wealth stability:

If A is 1000x wealthier than B.
A's income may be less with a 90% income tax, but it's still high enough.
B meanwhile can't match As wealth even if they make As entire wealth in income in one year, not even if repeated for a lifetime.
If As business is highly regulated, their profit may be less, but...
The increased costs for B to compete will be prohibitive..

Wealth stability is almost always more important to people than gross wealth.

Example 2: The power of the state reduces in comparison to established private interests:
What raises more tax revenue: 1% higher tax/GDP or 1% higher GDP growth?

The answer is you will get slightly more in the short term raising taxes with a compounding gain for investment in growth.

Thus, in a higher tax, higher regulatory environment. An established player overtime can expect less risk of regulatory oversight for incomplience and more relative power in the overall economy. Whereas, in a lower tax, growth focuesd environment, an established player will face more competition, lowering their relative power and a government with more gross resources and less dependence meaning higher regulatory oversight for incompliance.

This goes on...

 

[haymarket]

Bzzzzzzzzzt. Nope.

But you have to admit, when FDR stole everyone's gold at $20 and then "revalued" gold at $35, that was a serious blow to the common man.

Do you labor under the delusion that the common working man hoarded gold?

 

[haymarket]

Democrats are for whom? Good god, when I believed that, i too was a Democrat. But that is a lie of herculean size.

Tell me about Social Security and Medicare and the War on Poverty.

 

[holbritter]

But paying people a living salary would ruin the economy, or so I've been told. Which reminds of when I started working, and minimum wage allowed me to have my own apartment, a car, a girlfriend, and enough to go the pub once or twice a week for a couple of cold ones. And the economy seemed just fine.

Which had little to do with minimum wage, but more with what everything cost back then. But yes, the economy seemed just fine.

 

[holbritter]

Why must a person request permission from the state in order to cut hair for a living?

Because the state sets a standard of education/training for certain professions and having that license shows customers you have the minimum requirements to know what you are doing.

If they didn't require a license, anyone could say they know how to cut hair. The license is proof you should know the basics.

 

[Simpletruther]

Why would big CEOs be democrats? There are some big heads of some major corporations that are democratic. The reason I think it would be peculiar for such people to be democrats is because democrats tend to favor the working class people and the underdogs, not the big CEOs. Its silly to belong to a party that doesn't support big corporations and big multi million or multi billion dollar CEOs when you are such a CEO.

Define support for the discussion.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Why would big CEOs be democrats? There are some big heads of some major corporations that are democratic. The reason I think it would be peculiar for such people to be democrats is because democrats tend to favor the working class people and the underdogs, not the big CEOs. Its silly to belong to a party that doesn't support big corporations and big multi million or multi billion dollar CEOs when you are such a CEO.

Lol...democrats are for lining their pockets that's why. They only claim to be for the working class because they need their votes to stay in power. Thats why they need illegals here and voting. Many people are stupid enough to believe their lies but on whole most arent. Just look at the green new deal, healthcare for all, free college, student loan payoffs, everyone gets a 1000 dollar a month payoff.... blah blah blah...dems are spewing this garbage because they know a lot of people are simply not intelligent enough to know they will never be able to follow through with those promises. Yes I wonder why dems say they are for the working class as they align with the upper class. Look at warren. she almost cries during debate because she cares too much...meanwhile this is the same woman that evicted people from theit homes for her personal profit. Yeah...dems are for the blue collar....it's just they never actually help them. Same as the inner city...they need them on assistance...for votes.