Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.

Who said anything about natural rights?
I'm talking about productivity.

Exploitation?
Commies are funny.
You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
Whiner.

Rhymes with rich:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
China’s Youth Meet Microsoft
KYE Factory in China Produces for Microsoft and
other U.S. Companies
“We are like prisoners… We do not have a life. Only work.”
-Teenaged Microsoft Worker"
Maybe you can get a job when you grow a pair?

http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports/Chinas_Youth_Meet_Micro.pdf

You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff. Don't work for him.
Whiner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said anything about natural rights? I'm talking about productivity.

But you seem to have a one-dimensional perception of the mechanics of productivity.


Yes! Microsoft is a perfect example of economic exploitation.

Whom do you believe is a "commie," and why? Do you understand what communism is?

You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.

Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me. He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap which is predicated on a system of planned obsolescence and dependency on Microsoft to remain current. He shakes you and me down every two years or so to the tune of hundreds of dollars when we need nothing more than a few dollars worth of updating. And if you're thinking that shakedown represents productivity, the fact is without Gates' monopoly we both would have more money to spend on other things -- which means productivity would not suffer from eliminating Gates.

You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.

It's not that simple. As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap. He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls. Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.

Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me. He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap

OMG! Don't use Windows.

Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.

It's awful that his products are so convenient for you.

 

[ilia25]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

That's family income, numskull. Families have been shrinking because of all the welfare queens who can't keep their legs together and have illegitimate children. One sure way to grow up poor is for your mother to have never been married to your father.

Don't blame capitalism for that. Blame the welfare state.

Look at the chart, fuckface. You think average household size shrinking from 2.76 to 2.57 would explain why the incomes of 1% were growing 5 times faster?

 

[Dragonlady]

Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.

Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees. The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies. Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings. Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies.

Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.

And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.

 

[bripat9643]

Any market that is not perfect.

Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but there is no perfect market and no non-governmental intervention in this world.

The bolded part is exactly my point.

All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.

The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll. Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist ever discussed anything called a "perfect market." They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.

One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information. According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is to know about all the products being sold. Of course, such an idea is ludicrous. If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless. Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product. I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells. No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it.

That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash. There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."

Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.

Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?

 

[bripat9643]

Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...

You are focused on the way things are "getting." Are you old enough to remember the way things were? Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich." It wasn't that long ago. And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled. There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations. But something happened.

It began with Reaganomics, which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire siphon-up economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric. That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.

It isn't jealousy you're seeing. It's resentment. And it's well justified.

How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???

That's up to you and me to decide.

The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy. The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range. Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple. And their common motivation for doing it is greed.

I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess. I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.

Radical, yes. But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society. And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

I knew you were an idiot, but you proved it with that last idea. This country would swirl down the toilet bowl if the government confiscated any assets over a million dollars. Who do you think would invest in companies like Apple Computer under such a regime? Don't you understand that 95% of the assets of the rich are invested in American business in one form or another? Following your prescription means nationalizing virtually every corporation in America.

You're a nothing but a fucking communist.

You just admitted it.

 

[bripat9643]

Who said anything about natural rights? I'm talking about productivity.

But you seem to have a one-dimensional perception of the mechanics of productivity.


Yes! Microsoft is a perfect example of economic exploitation.

Whom do you believe is a "commie," and why? Do you understand what communism is?.

You're a commie. You just proved it.

You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.

Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me. He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap which is predicated on a system of planned obsolescence and dependency on Microsoft to remain current. He shakes you and me down every two years or so to the tune of hundreds of dollars when we need nothing more than a few dollars worth of updating. And if you're thinking that shakedown represents productivity, the fact is without Gates' monopoly we both would have more money to spend on other things -- which means productivity would not suffer from eliminating Gates.

Apparently the term "exploit" means to provide a product or service that people want and find useful. Without Gates' so-called monopoly millions of women would still be secretaries and we'd all be a lot poorer because corporations would have to pay for this added expense. Desktop computers have saved American business $trillions of dollars in the last 20 years. These savings have made Americans vastly more wealthy. I guess that's what it means to be "exploited." Next time there's a line to be "exploited," you'll find me standing in it.

You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.

It's not that simple. As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap. He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls. Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.

So Microsoft makes your life more convenient?

 

[bripat9643]

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

That's family income, numskull. Families have been shrinking because of all the welfare queens who can't keep their legs together and have illegitimate children. One sure way to grow up poor is for your mother to have never been married to your father.

Don't blame capitalism for that. Blame the welfare state.

Look at the chart, fuckface. You think average household size shrinking from 2.76 to 2.57 would explain why the incomes of 1% were growing 5 times faster?

You can add in the fact that Union lobbying to make corporate takeovers virtually impossible to the mix. Corporate takeovers were about the only way to get rid of entrenched management, but since they threatened extortionist union contracts as well, the unions lobbied their government to make them illegal. Now, no matter how rapacious and greedy the management becomes, an outside investor cannot move in and replace them with cheaper more competent managers.

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.

So then why don't those "workers" invest in their company and become one of those "shareholders who pocket monies"? Duh! That's the beauty of freedom. That's the beauty of choice.

Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees.

Where in the hell is that written?!? Employees have a choice in their employment. They have chosen to work that job for that salary.

The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies.

You're 100% correct on that. Unfortunately, it's people like you who have demanded that our government unconstitutionally subsidize everything.

Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings.

Again, where in the hell is that written?!? If that's what you want, get up off of your lazy ass, start your own company, and run it that way...

Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies.

And thank God! Because otherwise, there would be zero incentive for people to rise up. Which is why your spread-the-wealth ends in collapse. There is no incentive to work hard and improve.

Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.

Care to expand on that? We are already over-legislated in the U.S. What additional laws does your lazy, communist ass desire to see?

And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.

Because conservatives are much smarter than you. They realize that the U.S. has established a platform which promotes success for anyone and everyone - so long as they are driven enough to achieve that success. While buffoon's like you believe life is all run and controlled by some "mystical force" which enslaves one to poverty for eternity and others to opulence for eternity (even though the facts prove that is absolutely and unequivocally wrong).

 

[P@triot]

It's not that simple. As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap. He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls. Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.

I seriously can't figure out if this is sarcasm or not, so props to you for that.

Your argument though, if legit, is absurd.

'Bill Gates created a monopoly, except for all these alternatives that do the same thing, that I don't have time to learn.'

 

[Dragonlady]

Nice to see that Rottweiler continues to reside in his conservative bubble where the American dream isn't dead and everybody still had a chance to be the next Bill Gates.

By every measure, doors are closing to the lower and middle class to rise up. If you don't make enough to support yourself and your family, how can you possibly have money left over to invest?

The quality of public school education is in serious decline and American students are falling behind the rest of the world while surveys show that a large percentage of the population denies science, evolution and climate change.

Student grants are being cut while tuition rises so that when students graduate, their future has been fully mortgaged to pay their tuition.

Unions gave rise to the middle class. It's no accident that in destroying the middle class Ronnie Rayguns went after the unions first.

 

[georgephillip]

Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...

You are focused on the way things are "getting." Are you old enough to remember the way things were? Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich." It wasn't that long ago. And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled. There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations. But something happened.

It began with Reaganomics, which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire siphon-up economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric. That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.

It isn't jealousy you're seeing. It's resentment. And it's well justified.

How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???

That's up to you and me to decide.

The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy. The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range. Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple. And their common motivation for doing it is greed.

I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess. I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.

Radical, yes. But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society. And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

I knew you were an idiot, but you proved it with that last idea. This country would swirl down the toilet bowl if the government confiscated any assets over a million dollars. Who do you think would invest in companies like Apple Computer under such a regime? Don't you understand that 95% of the assets of the rich are invested in American business in one form or another? Following your prescription means nationalizing virtually every corporation in America.

You're a nothing but a fucking communist.

You just admitted it.

While you just admitted you're a liar.

 

[Bombur]

You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but there is no perfect market and no non-governmental intervention in this world.

The bolded part is exactly my point.

All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.

The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll. Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist every discussed anything called a "perfect market." They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.

One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information. According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is no know about all the products being sold. Of course, such an idea is ludicrous. If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless. Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product. I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells. No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it do.

That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash. There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."

Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.

Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?

Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me.

/boggle

As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.

 

[bripat9643]

You are focused on the way things are "getting." Are you old enough to remember the way things were? Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich." It wasn't that long ago. And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled. There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations. But something happened.

It began with Reaganomics, which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire siphon-up economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric. That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.

It isn't jealousy you're seeing. It's resentment. And it's well justified.


That's up to you and me to decide.

The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy. The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range. Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple. And their common motivation for doing it is greed.

I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess. I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.

Radical, yes. But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society. And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

I knew you were an idiot, but you proved it with that last idea. This country would swirl down the toilet bowl if the government confiscated any assets over a million dollars. Who do you think would invest in companies like Apple Computer under such a regime? Don't you understand that 95% of the assets of the rich are invested in American business in one form or another? Following your prescription means nationalizing virtually every corporation in America.

You're a nothing but a fucking communist.

You just admitted it.

While you just admitted you're a liar.

So where do the rich put their money?

 

[bripat9643]

The bolded part is exactly my point.

All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.

The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll. Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist every discussed anything called a "perfect market." They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.

One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information. According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is no know about all the products being sold. Of course, such an idea is ludicrous. If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless. Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product. I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells. No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it do.

That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash. There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."

Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.

Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?

Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me.

Horseshit. It's propaganda used to justify government intervention. No economist ever mentioned a "perfect market" before the FDR regime gained power and put them all on the government payroll.

[As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.

Obama's policies are the cause of growing income equality.

 

[usmcstinger]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Your lack a rudimentary understanding of economics.

European Socialism brought their member countries to the verge of economic collapse.

Communism promises to end Income Inequality. However, the State decides upon how much education you can have and what your job will be. We saw how that ended.

Government can not create jobs only the private sector.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.

Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees. The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies. Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings. Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies.

Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.

And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.

Interesting.

Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The bolded part is exactly my point.

All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.

The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll. Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist every discussed anything called a "perfect market." They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.

One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information. According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is no know about all the products being sold. Of course, such an idea is ludicrous. If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless. Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product. I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells. No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it do.

That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash. There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."

Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.

Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?

Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me.

/boggle

As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.

Umm, no it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_market

 

[Dragonlady]

Interesting.

Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.

I'm posting from my iPhone so I can't copy and paste links but Walmart's HR Department assists its workers in applying for food stamps and Medicaid. I have seen reports that every taxpayer in the US is subsidizing Walmart employees by just under $2500 annually.

MacDonalds posted an employee budget to make ends meet which included a substantial chunk of income from a second job. They also help employees apply for and obtain government assistance.

Wage subsidies have been completely integrated into their corporate culture. But these same corporations operate profitably in other countries with higher minimum wages, and higher taxes. Walmart is one of the most profitable companies in Canada as well, but our minimum wage is $10.25 per hour and our employer taxes are higher as well. So it's not like Walmart needs to chintz on wages to be highly profitable.

I'm sure you could google this stuff because they were all on mainstream websites.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting.

Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.

I'm posting from my iPhone so I can't copy and paste links but Walmart's HR Department assists its workers in applying for food stamps and Medicaid. I have seen reports that every taxpayer in the US is subsidizing Walmart employees by just under $2500 annually.

MacDonalds posted an employee budget to make ends meet which included a substantial chunk of income from a second job. They also help employees apply for and obtain government assistance.

Wage subsidies have been completely integrated into their corporate culture. But these same corporations operate profitably in other countries with higher minimum wages, and higher taxes. Walmart is one of the most profitable companies in Canada as well, but our minimum wage is $10.25 per hour and our employer taxes are higher as well. So it's not like Walmart needs to chintz on wages to be highly profitable.

I'm sure you could google this stuff because they were all on mainstream websites.

Believe it or not, WalMArt is only one company, and it really isn't turning in record profits. On top of that, the average WalMart worker tends to be from a larger than average family living in conditions created by decades of Democratic policies that make it harder for urban dwellers to succeed. That skews the statistical sample to make it look worse than it actually is, especially when you consider that they already pay more than the new proposed federal minimum wage.

What you should be asking yourself is why WalMart, which you consider to be evil incarnate, supports a hike in the minimum wage? Could it be that it enables them to price their competition, the local mom and pop stores, out of business? Wouldn't this actually result in fewer jobs, and more income inequality?

Why do you support policies that produce results exactly the opposite of what you claim you want?