Only when we realize it!Waco1947 said:Easy one - You and everyone here on this board including me.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So please define rich for us, Waco. How much money or what exactly qualifies someone to be "rich"?Waco1947 said:
Rich guys telling the poor "You're not poor anymore."
No that's .....well rich.
The Real Economy isn't Booming
43,522 Views |
436 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Waco1947
"The Left" did not post the OP.Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
Ohhh, yeah. I see it. They accidentally counted the children in the number. Good catch.Bruce Leroy said:Please note where I confused the point.BrooksBearLives said:It appears you're confusing "poor" and "working poor" which are not the same thing.Bruce Leroy said:My previous quote from my response.BrooksBearLives said:Bruce Leroy said:
"So you're saying that Newsweek is lying?"
I haven't posted in reference to Newsweek.
So are you saying that the stated facts in your original post are correct in your opinion?
Ah crap. I'm sorry. Got confused on the article I posted.
So you're saying Forbes is lying/wrong?
"Your source data is incorrect."
So are you saying that the stated facts in your original post are correct in your opinion?
The 12.7% number comes from those classified as "poor" as of 2016 (the most up-to-date data at the time of the article).
The 8.6 million people number was the "working poor."
This is directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2016/home.htmQuote:
In 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 40.6 million people, or 12.7 percent of the nation's population, lived below the poverty level.1 (See the technical notes section for examples of poverty levels.) Although the poor were primarily children and adults who had not participated in the labor force during the year, 7.6 million individuals were among the "working poor" in 2016, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; this measure was down from 2015. The working poor are people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (that is, working or looking for work) but whose incomes still fell below the poverty level. In 2016, the working-poor ratethe ratio of the working poor to all individuals in the labor force for at least 27 weekswas 4.9 percent, down 0.7 percentage point from the previous year. (See table A, chart 1, and table 1.)
So, with respect, that appears to confirm the article's numbers, unless I'm missing something.
I direct you to the sentence from your original linked article."About 12% of Americans (43 million) are considered poor, and yet they are employed."
Is this statement correct?
Please explain how the BLS sentence you posted "12.7 percent of the nation's population, lived below the poverty level.....Although the poor were primarily children and adults who had not participated in the labor force during the year" confirms "yet they are employed"?
I don't think that substantially changes the argument. Those poor (even the children) are in poverty even though their parents/guardians are working. Otherwise, what's the difference between THOSE poor children and every other child (who doesn't work)?
But yeah. They certainly could have worded that better/sussed that out. I don't think it was a lie or purposefully distorted.
I still think the point stands. There is a SIGNIFICANT amount of the country that is working -or supported by someone who is working- who are still poor. That's not right. If someone is industrious and hard-working and trying, they shouldn't be poor. Not in a meritocracy.
Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.
You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.
You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.
This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
Doc Holliday said:
Have any solutions to make the economy boom BBL?
His answer......elect Plugs
That's like saying the solution to the Black Plague was to bring in more rats.ScottS said:Doc Holliday said:
Have any solutions to make the economy boom BBL?
His answer......elect Plugs
I didn't say that. At all.ScottS said:Doc Holliday said:
Have any solutions to make the economy boom BBL?
His answer......elect Plugs
You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
BrooksBearLives said:I didn't say that. At all.ScottS said:Doc Holliday said:
Have any solutions to make the economy boom BBL?
His answer......elect Plugs
You didnt say it, but we know you are thinking it.
Of course it's a fact, but it's not for the reasons you think.BrooksBearLives said:You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
It's not a zero sum economy.
Buying power is all that matters. We have the highest buying power in history.
The poor aren't poor because the 1% exist. Or because shareholders have enormous amounts of wealth.
It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.
When an iPhone verges on outdated technology, it's impossible to miss the fact that wealth grows.
Lets say a man is tired of catching fish with his hands. So he uses his brain and makes a spear and increases his catches tenfold. Can another man, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that the other guy has received an "unfair distribution" of fish? No. The spear maker doesn't gobble down an already-baked pie--he produces. What advances society and why technology has rapidly increased alongside American capitalism is because the non spear maker makes a net and catches more than the spear maker. The cycle continues and continues bringing in hordes of people who contribute to increased output.
Do individuals working for a company have equal claim to what the company has received in wealth? NO!. It's a consensual agreement.
Where you are laying blame is a falsehood.
Wealth disparity is not the system nor the law. It's due to cultural decline, poor education and the behavior of society. We are seeing a massive decline in IQ and entrepreneurship and an increase in economic illiteracy. That explains the disparity.
What you should focus on is making it easier to compete with the 1%. Not stealing and redistributing their wealth.
ScottS said:BrooksBearLives said:I didn't say that. At all.ScottS said:Doc Holliday said:
Have any solutions to make the economy boom BBL?
His answer......elect Plugs
You didnt say it, but we know you are thinking it.
So you're a mind-reader now?
Why bother going on a message board if you already know what everyone is going to say?
I was talking about America in the last 25 years, not the world in the last 55 years. So your stat is meaningless to my argument. Still it is a good thing and it is important to understand what is happening. The reason poverty has fallen worldwide is the rise of regulated free market economies. I would refer you to Stephen Pinker's excellent book, Enlightenment Now, for a thorough explanation.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
You seem to think that any regulation of business is a dreadful thing that will kill the economy. If you want to live in an unregulated free market you and almost everyone will be really miserable; a couple of people will be exceedingly happy. But there is no sense having a discussion if you reject all regulation.
Doc Holliday said:Of course it's a fact, but it's not for the reasons you think.BrooksBearLives said:You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
It's not a zero sum economy.
Buying power is all that matters. We have the highest buying power in history.
The poor aren't poor because the 1% exist. Or because shareholders have enormous amounts of wealth.
It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.
When an iPhone verges on outdated technology, it's impossible to miss the fact that wealth grows.
Lets say a man is tired of catching fish with his hands. So he uses his brain and makes a spear and increases his catches tenfold. Can another man, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that the other guy has received an "unfair distribution" of fish? No. The spear maker doesn't gobble down an already-baked pie--he produces. What advances society and why technology has rapidly increased alongside American capitalism is because the non spear maker makes a net and catches more than the spear maker. The cycle continues and continues bringing in hordes of people who contribute to increased output.
Do individuals working for a company have equal claim to what the company has received in wealth? NO!. It's a consensual agreement.
Where you are laying blame is a falsehood.
Wealth disparity is not the system nor the law. It's due to cultural decline, poor education and the behavior of society. We are seeing a massive decline in IQ and entrepreneurship. That explains the disparity and people should reap what they sow.
Actually, zero sum IS the direction we're going in. What you're describing is unsustainable.
You y'all about buying power, but the buying power of the middle class is dropping. Real wages have decreased slowly for decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Wealth IS concentrating. That results in lower economic mobility and more stagnancy.
What has happened to EVERY society where that has gone unchecked?
Zero sum is IMPOSSIBLE. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about here.BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Of course it's a fact, but it's not for the reasons you think.BrooksBearLives said:You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
It's not a zero sum economy.
Buying power is all that matters. We have the highest buying power in history.
The poor aren't poor because the 1% exist. Or because shareholders have enormous amounts of wealth.
It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.
When an iPhone verges on outdated technology, it's impossible to miss the fact that wealth grows.
Lets say a man is tired of catching fish with his hands. So he uses his brain and makes a spear and increases his catches tenfold. Can another man, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that the other guy has received an "unfair distribution" of fish? No. The spear maker doesn't gobble down an already-baked pie--he produces. What advances society and why technology has rapidly increased alongside American capitalism is because the non spear maker makes a net and catches more than the spear maker. The cycle continues and continues bringing in hordes of people who contribute to increased output.
Do individuals working for a company have equal claim to what the company has received in wealth? NO!. It's a consensual agreement.
Where you are laying blame is a falsehood.
Wealth disparity is not the system nor the law. It's due to cultural decline, poor education and the behavior of society. We are seeing a massive decline in IQ and entrepreneurship. That explains the disparity and people should reap what they sow.
Actually, zero sum IS the direction we're going in. What you're describing is unsustainable.
You y'all about buying power, but the buying power of the middle class is dropping. Real wages have decreased slowly for decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Wealth IS concentrating. That results in lower economic mobility and more stagnancy.
What has happened to EVERY society where that has gone unchecked?
It doesn't matter if wealth is concentrating, that's not what is lowering economic mobility. Go ahead and make the connection if you'd like...it's impossible.
Lack of entrepreneurship, bad spending habits, cultural problems, TV, internet, bad education, bad parenting...those are the reasons. There is your lack of competition. There is your lack of effort to acquire more income. There is your wealth disparity.
It's OK to blame people. You are witnessing people reaping what they sow. They need to sow better.
You've created a boogie man that doesn't exist and you want him dead which will hurt all of us.
You will find no progress in threats, government force or theft. It destroys everything.
Doc Holliday said:Zero sum is IMPOSSIBLE. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about here.BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Of course it's a fact, but it's not for the reasons you think.BrooksBearLives said:You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
It's not a zero sum economy.
Buying power is all that matters. We have the highest buying power in history.
The poor aren't poor because the 1% exist. Or because shareholders have enormous amounts of wealth.
It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.
When an iPhone verges on outdated technology, it's impossible to miss the fact that wealth grows.
Lets say a man is tired of catching fish with his hands. So he uses his brain and makes a spear and increases his catches tenfold. Can another man, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that the other guy has received an "unfair distribution" of fish? No. The spear maker doesn't gobble down an already-baked pie--he produces. What advances society and why technology has rapidly increased alongside American capitalism is because the non spear maker makes a net and catches more than the spear maker. The cycle continues and continues bringing in hordes of people who contribute to increased output.
Do individuals working for a company have equal claim to what the company has received in wealth? NO!. It's a consensual agreement.
Where you are laying blame is a falsehood.
Wealth disparity is not the system nor the law. It's due to cultural decline, poor education and the behavior of society. We are seeing a massive decline in IQ and entrepreneurship. That explains the disparity and people should reap what they sow.
Actually, zero sum IS the direction we're going in. What you're describing is unsustainable.
You y'all about buying power, but the buying power of the middle class is dropping. Real wages have decreased slowly for decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Wealth IS concentrating. That results in lower economic mobility and more stagnancy.
What has happened to EVERY society where that has gone unchecked?
It doesn't matter if wealth is concentrating, that's not what is lowering economic mobility.
Go ahead and make the connection if you'd like...it's impossible.
It's an asymptote. It can never be zero. But you're making a distinction without much of a difference.
And wealth concentration ABSOLUTELY factors into lack of economic mobility. With money, is power. And people don't give up power willingly. They use that paper to concentrate more power and wealth.
That's literally capitalism at play. Capitalism has no morality and no soul. Pure capitalism is exactly as toxic as pure socialism.
US economic mobility is dropping and has been. That means it is harder and harder for people to do better. This current generation is going to be the first generation in recent US history that's worse off than their parents.
https://equitablegrowth.org/working-papers/wealth-distribution-social-mobility/
If the problem was people not being productive, we would not have seen huge raises in productivity.
But we have-and those productivity increases have been rewarded with stagnant or declining (in real terms) wages. But capital has reaped huge rewards from the same productivity increases. And any attempt to shift the balance of rewards is met with delirious cries of "socialism!!!"
We are a nation of reactionaries, half of whom don't even realize how they are getting screwed over.
But we have-and those productivity increases have been rewarded with stagnant or declining (in real terms) wages. But capital has reaped huge rewards from the same productivity increases. And any attempt to shift the balance of rewards is met with delirious cries of "socialism!!!"
We are a nation of reactionaries, half of whom don't even realize how they are getting screwed over.
I can make mud-pies all day and work my ass off in increased productivity. That doesn't mean I'm not being productive, it means I'm being useless.Booray said:
If the problem was people not being productive, we would not have seen huge raises in productivity.
But we have-and those productivity increases have been rewarded with stagnant or declining (in real terms) wages. But capital has reaped huge rewards from the same productivity increases. And any attempt to shift the balance of rewards is met with delirious cries of "socialism!!!"
We are a nation of reactionaries, half of whom don't even realize how they are getting screwed over.
You can shift the balance of rewards with increased competition. You can increase competition by making it easier to enter the market and flourish. We can do that by lowering taxes, decreasing regulations all which help groups of people coming together to compete have more capital to spend and grow.
And the big one: creating more educated people who will create wealth for themselves and others.
Let me repeat: it's ludicrous for the rich (you guys) to the poor they are t poor. Yeah they are poor.
This is an outright lie.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
This is an outright lie.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
^^^^^^^^%^truthBooray said:
If the problem was people not being productive, we would not have seen huge raises in productivity.
But we have-and those productivity increases have been rewarded with stagnant or declining (in real terms) wages. But capital has reaped huge rewards from the same productivity increases. And any attempt to shift the balance of rewards is met with delirious cries of "socialism!!!"
We are a nation of reactionaries, half of whom don't even realize how they are getting screwed over.
Chances are you won't get a rational response
First world problems. How to complain about standards of living benchmarked to the highest standard in the world.
BrooksBearLives said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Yeah. 3,6 percent unemployment SUCKS! This is totally unacceptable. Where are Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama when we need them?
Nobody said 3.6% unemployment sucks.
The economy has been improving for 10 years -and that's a really good thing.
But it's not perfect. Right now, many people are fully "employed" and still poor. That's not right.
LOL
27 weeks of employment per year is "fully 'employed'" in your world??
The real problem is that some people think that you should be able to live off of a shift job at McDonalds. That's a joke. The jobs at McDonalds are supposed to be for high school kids, or the first job for someone who just got out of jail... these are not career positions. Some morons actually argue that you should be able to feed a family from such a job. That's insane.
If you want to feed a family, then you need to work your way up into a better job. It really doesn't take much.
If you just can't seem to get a decent job, then join the military. They will pay a little, and cover almost all of your living expenses... and usually teach you a trade, if you want it. Guys come out of the military with skills to be a mechanic or operate heavy machinery or even some HVAC skills...
There really isn't a good excuse for failure in this economy. If you can't get a decent job today, then you really don't want to work too hard.
I do know this.
I own a small business (construction). I know it is an extremely small sample size, but since 2016, I have been able to increase my guy's payroll by 33% and still stay marketable. Same guys, great skills.
I'm in Waco, but I have seen the same in many places...In fact, most places.
I don't listen to news reports of economic things happening much, but I do live it.
Who has suffered since 2016? Real question, because I have not seen it for me or the guys I work with.
Anybody seen terrible economic challenges happen to them caused by the economy?
2008, yeah I saw it heavily...Now, you are gonna have to show me because I don't see it and it's not close.
I own a small business (construction). I know it is an extremely small sample size, but since 2016, I have been able to increase my guy's payroll by 33% and still stay marketable. Same guys, great skills.
I'm in Waco, but I have seen the same in many places...In fact, most places.
I don't listen to news reports of economic things happening much, but I do live it.
Who has suffered since 2016? Real question, because I have not seen it for me or the guys I work with.
Anybody seen terrible economic challenges happen to them caused by the economy?
2008, yeah I saw it heavily...Now, you are gonna have to show me because I don't see it and it's not close.
This was an excellent post, my young friend. You are wise beyond your years.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Accounting Professor McBurney at Baylor told us back in 1983 that only two of us of our class of about 40 people would be able to achieve more wealth than our parents. He was wrong! (For the record, I thought McBurney was a great professor. Somehow he made accounting somewhat interesting.)BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Zero sum is IMPOSSIBLE. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about here.BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Of course it's a fact, but it's not for the reasons you think.BrooksBearLives said:You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
It's not a zero sum economy.
Buying power is all that matters. We have the highest buying power in history.
The poor aren't poor because the 1% exist. Or because shareholders have enormous amounts of wealth.
It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.
When an iPhone verges on outdated technology, it's impossible to miss the fact that wealth grows.
Lets say a man is tired of catching fish with his hands. So he uses his brain and makes a spear and increases his catches tenfold. Can another man, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that the other guy has received an "unfair distribution" of fish? No. The spear maker doesn't gobble down an already-baked pie--he produces. What advances society and why technology has rapidly increased alongside American capitalism is because the non spear maker makes a net and catches more than the spear maker. The cycle continues and continues bringing in hordes of people who contribute to increased output.
Do individuals working for a company have equal claim to what the company has received in wealth? NO!. It's a consensual agreement.
Where you are laying blame is a falsehood.
Wealth disparity is not the system nor the law. It's due to cultural decline, poor education and the behavior of society. We are seeing a massive decline in IQ and entrepreneurship. That explains the disparity and people should reap what they sow.
Actually, zero sum IS the direction we're going in. What you're describing is unsustainable.
You y'all about buying power, but the buying power of the middle class is dropping. Real wages have decreased slowly for decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Wealth IS concentrating. That results in lower economic mobility and more stagnancy.
What has happened to EVERY society where that has gone unchecked?
It doesn't matter if wealth is concentrating, that's not what is lowering economic mobility.
Go ahead and make the connection if you'd like...it's impossible.
US economic mobility is dropping and has been. That means it is harder and harder for people to do better. This current generation is going to be the first generation in recent US history that's worse off than their parents.
https://equitablegrowth.org/working-papers/wealth-distribution-social-mobility/
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?Doc Holliday said:It's not a zero sum economy.BrooksBearLives said:You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.
For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Has anyone had personal experience on declining business, wages, etc. since 2016?
I'm just curious, since my small sample size doesn't show that.
Something I am missing? I don't want media reports...I want personal experiences.
Anyone?
I'm just curious, since my small sample size doesn't show that.
Something I am missing? I don't want media reports...I want personal experiences.
Anyone?
ATL Bear said:
First world problems. How to complain about standards of living benchmarked to the highest standard in the world.
^^^^Truth^^^^
fadskier said:
For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.
Nope. It's about birth.
ShooterTX said:BrooksBearLives said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Yeah. 3,6 percent unemployment SUCKS! This is totally unacceptable. Where are Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama when we need them?
Nobody said 3.6% unemployment sucks.
The economy has been improving for 10 years -and that's a really good thing.
But it's not perfect. Right now, many people are fully "employed" and still poor. That's not right.
LOL
27 weeks of employment per year is "fully 'employed'" in your world??
The real problem is that some people think that you should be able to live off of a shift job at McDonalds. That's a joke. The jobs at McDonalds are supposed to be for high school kids, or the first job for someone who just got out of jail... these are not career positions. Some morons actually argue that you should be able to feed a family from such a job. That's insane.
If you want to feed a family, then you need to work your way up into a better job. It really doesn't take much.
If you just can't seem to get a decent job, then join the military. They will pay a little, and cover almost all of your living expenses... and usually teach you a trade, if you want it. Guys come out of the military with skills to be a mechanic or operate heavy machinery or even some HVAC skills...
There really isn't a good excuse for failure in this economy. If you can't get a decent job today, then you really don't want to work too hard.
It's called place of birth and parents
I'll ask again.
Has anyone had personal experience on declining business, wages, etc. since 2016?
I'm just curious, since my small sample size doesn't show that.
Something I am missing? I don't want media reports...I want personal experiences.
Anyone?
Has anyone had personal experience on declining business, wages, etc. since 2016?
I'm just curious, since my small sample size doesn't show that.
Something I am missing? I don't want media reports...I want personal experiences.
Anyone?
Actually, it's more like don't raise the minimum wage, which allows my company to use students as interns, hiring the best of them at competitive wages, and using capital to invest in better production facilities and better resources to make work comfortable and teams more effective.Sam Lowry said:Great. So we can raise the minimum wage, you can pay your workers more, and you'll still have just as much, right?Doc Holliday said:It's not a zero sum economy.BrooksBearLives said:You're saying that wealth disparity isn't a thing? It has grown exponentially. This is a fact.Doc Holliday said:Booray said:Doc Holliday said:
If the left views free market economics as just ideological cover for the rich, then we must go further and ask why they think that.
The reason why teaching people sound economics doesn't make them supporters of free market capitalism is because they don't WANT to believe that free market capitalism is a good thing. They WANT to believe that it's wrong and so they do. People are first and foremost religious. This means they first put their faith into a worldview they want to be true. They will only accept reason and evidence if reason and evidence are consistent with their chosen worldview.
This means that the only way to convince people to support free market capitalism is to get them to want to support free market capitalism. This requires a change in their faith, or the world view of which they want to be true. People's views on politics and economics tend to come rather indirectly from their religious and cultural views. Therefore, you're probably not going to get very far in convincing people of free markets by presenting directly free market arguments. Rather their religious and cultural views must first be changed to enable them to want to support free markets.
It is indeed, easier to sell socialism than liberty. Socialism is quite superficial and not even considered socialism but in a lot of instances just "government correction of capitalist shortcomings".
I did want to add that moral superiority trumps facts, reason and logic. The left, on a perch of moral superiority, loves to point to any sign of a moral shortfall in the right. They maximize and feign moral outrage at any sign of it in the right and attempt to ignore or minimize it in themselves. Witness the Virginia governor's (Northam) refusal resign and be knocked off his morally superior perch. Actually, all three top Democrats in Virginia are refusing to resign for perceived lapses in moral judgement.
Moral superiority is a form of political correctness designed to stop debate or discussion. A minimum wage superficially looks to benefit the poor. Any understanding of economics tells us this is not true. I do not expect any minimum wage earner to have a grasp of any level of economics and all he sees is an immediate improvement in the size of his paycheck. The left can roil the minimum wage earner to demand through protest and strike, that is; social disruption, a higher minimum wage which may be, if it doesn't cost him his job, initially of benefit and the left appears to be the champion of the poor. We know in the long term an increase in the minimum wage earner would at best leave the employee at best treading water but is more than likely be detrimental.You regurgitated the left's solutions with this sentence:Quote:
"The Left" did not post the OP.
That legal structure would include higher minimum wage;strengthened collective bargaining rights; the absence of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements; the right to assert employment claims in class action settings; increased penalties for underpayment of wages; sensible restrictions on covenants not to compete; access to health insurance or care (whether through the employer or via single-payer) and a variety of other things that have been eroded over the past 25 years.
You fail to see that every employment is a consensual agreement. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to work somewhere or agree to that companies terms and provisions. You can quit.
I own a business and this will force me to pay out more money. I will retaliate to save my bottom line. That means less hiring, increasing the price of my product and slowing down my production to maintain where I got to so that I don't reverse course.
Do these solutions work if the buying power remains the same? No.
You're clearly eliminating the human/market behavioral element in your solutions here. The market is not static. This is not a math problem.
There is no possible way to use the government to get corporations to pay out more money.You are not responsive to facts whatsoever. You distort everything to conform to your worldview which I am about to point out below.Quote:
Anytime you see facts you are uncomfortable with, you default to decrying "the Left" or "progressives" and then painting the facts with the broadest brush possible.This is an outright lie.Quote:
What the OP posits is that improved unemployment does not necessarily cleanly translate to an improved standard of living. That is an observation, not an attack on the free market. It is an invitation to consider legal structures that will help translate employment to an improved standard of living.
All can be debated and we need a sensible mix. But what is true is that the relationship between capital and labor has tilted decisively in capital's favor over the last quarter century. So even when "times are good" the trickle down benefits are actually pretty arid.
The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it's about one in twenty.
It's not a pie: the idea that there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, money etc. to go around, and the more a billionaire gets the less is left for the rest of us. That is a falsehood.
I'm living proof that it's not. In fact, there are many of us to prove that it's not.Waco1947 said:fadskier said:
For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.
Nope. It's about birth.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Thanks!RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
This was an excellent post, my young friend. You are wise beyond your years.
He/they will never acknowledge that.fadskier said:I'm living proof that it's not. In fact, there are many of us to prove that it's not.Waco1947 said:fadskier said:
For most of the poor, they are poor due to their own bad choices. The government has tried to help to no avail.
Nope. It's about birth.
They think if you are a particular race, somehow you are anointed.
I was not...Served in the military because options were limited financially wise and then made it work from there.
Nothing comes for free and if it does, that's what you get...Nothing.