Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.

Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:

"I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

"Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.

"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

"Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

Peer reviewed? LOL!

WalMart can pay what they like.
Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait.


"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on.

As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.

'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
This guy got a genius grant? LOL!

What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:

"I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

"Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.

"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

"Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

Peer reviewed? LOL!

WalMart can pay what they like.
Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait.


"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on.

As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.

'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
This guy got a genius grant? LOL!

What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?

I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
Net income was $16.999 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

 

[georgephillip]

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

Peer reviewed? LOL!

WalMart can pay what they like.
Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait.


"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on.

As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.

'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
This guy got a genius grant? LOL!

What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?

I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
Net income was $16.999 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

$127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?

Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?

I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
Net income was $16.999 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

$127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?

Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest

Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.

 

[georgephillip]

When people have the freedom to guide their own financial destinies, there's going to be inequality. You're not going to find equality in all aspects of life. I would rather have the freedom to make my own future, than be controlled, regulated, and taxed so I'm "more equal" with everyone else. This punishes people from lower and middle classes who work real hard to accrue wealth.

Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.

"The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."

Possibly, sufficiency of opportunity is some common ground between the two political poles; however, it appears many of the programs that help the poor surmount their initial inequality of opportunity (universal pre-kindergarten) are on the chopping block.

No one really believes in ?equality of opportunity?

 

[georgephillip]

I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
Net income was $16.999 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

$127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?

Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest

Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.

Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.

 

[dblack]

Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.

"The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."

There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.

 

[gnarlylove]

Banks and industry have no such power to compel us. If we don't want to play along, we don't have to. It might not be easy, we might have to do a lot more ourselves, without the support offered by these institutions, but we're not forced to follow their script. We can go our own way and we won't be imprisoned or killed. Government control offers no such leeway. That's the crucial difference that socialists usually fail to recognize, or choose to ignore, but it's real.

As I've said elsewhere, if we can devise socialist structures (like the aforementioned co-ops) that are voluntary, that's great. But that's not, really, what we're taking about, is it?

In principle you are correct. I also agree we will have to do a lot more ourselves. However, the situation of many people are forced into wage labor and obedience (to maintain the job). Their choice is between wage labor or abject circumstances.

Is this a genuine choice? No. People must survive first and foremost. If they can only find work for low wage dead end jobs, is it a choice? They will either It seems a lot more like a forced hand. So those of us who can recognize this corporate domination backed by government authority, we need to attack and undermine both systems since they compliment the function of one another. Although corporate rule does not involve the sword, it leaves people without options that have no capital to begin with--and that's a huge portion of the population.

So while we are technically, philosophically free, many fellow citizens lack the basic ability to subsist without joining wage slavery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?

Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest

Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.

Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.

No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.

 

[dblack]

Banks and industry have no such power to compel us. If we don't want to play along, we don't have to. It might not be easy, we might have to do a lot more ourselves, without the support offered by these institutions, but we're not forced to follow their script. We can go our own way and we won't be imprisoned or killed. Government control offers no such leeway. That's the crucial difference that socialists usually fail to recognize, or choose to ignore, but it's real.

As I've said elsewhere, if we can devise socialist structures (like the aforementioned co-ops) that are voluntary, that's great. But that's not, really, what we're taking about, is it?

In principle you are correct. I also agree we will have to do a lot more ourselves. However, the situation of many people are forced into wage labor and obedience (to maintain the job). Their choice is between wage labor or abject circumstances.

Slavery should definitely be against the law. If anyone is being forced into wage labor, I'll be happy to join the fight to stop it.

Is this a genuine choice? No. People must survive first and foremost. If they can only find work for low wage dead end jobs, is it a choice?

Of course it is. I, for one, have made the choice often. I'd much rather be free and poor, than a well-off slave. Some people won't make that choice, but it is a choice.

So those of us who can recognize this corporate domination backed by government authority, we need to attack and undermine both systems since they compliment the function of one another.

I'm completely in favor of ending corporate dominance backed by government authority. But what I see in your suggestions, and those of others here, is an utter concession to this collusion; throwing in the towel on freedom altogether enshrining the collusion in a state monopoly on economic decisions. That's like saying the only way we can be all be 'equally free' is for everyone to be in prison.

 

[georgephillip]

Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.

Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.

No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.

By what percentage?
Show the math.

 

[bripat9643]

Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.

No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.

By what percentage?
Show the math.

Any low grade moron can understand that when you subtract 'A' from 'B' you end up with less of 'B'

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.

No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.

By what percentage?
Show the math.

Showed you in post #2611.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

 

[bripat9643]

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Silly Question.

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

So blatant theft is your solution? Ever heard of the 5th Amendment? It would rule out your scheme to rob people of their property.

 

[bripat9643]

Not just that. But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue. ROFL

I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.

Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.

Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:

"I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

"Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.

"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

"Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

You mean he called a couple of his leftwing croanies whose full time job is pumping out statist propaganda?

 

[bripat9643]

Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Silly Question.

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.

Go fuck yourself, you greedy thieving asshole.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.

"The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."

There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.

When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.

 

[dblack]

Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.

"The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."

There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.

When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.

How do you plan to equalize genetics?

 

[georgephillip]

No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.

By what percentage?
Show the math.

Showed you in post #2611.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.

 

[P@triot]

Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101 - YouTube

Love the video... echo's my life. This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.

Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.

Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.