Do you shop at Walmart?

[Uncensored2008]

Then school me on the impact of a $12 minimum wage on the unit labor cost in the US. Can you, bitch?

If so, I'm all fucking ears.

You may be all ears, but you lack a brain with the cognitive capacity to process what you hear.

Clearly you are too young to have had an introductory economics course, if you stay in school, some time later in life you will.

There is an abstract concept that children and leftists often have trouble grasping, this concept is "value." You understand "money," but the idea that money is simply a marker is lost on you. Money has no value, it is simply a medium of exchange. The dollar in your pocket is worth no more than the paper it's printed on. What money is, is a promise by a society that a prearranged value will be exchanged, that the promissory note you carry will be accepted by others for the value of $1 dollar at the time of the exchange.

When you reach suitable age, you will be able to trade your time for what another values your time at. The more talent, intelligence, and skill that you have, the more others will value your time. Money means nothing, it is simply a marker for value. If you change the marker, the value remains the same. So if we say the marker for an hour of unskilled labor is $7.25 an hour, then the products and services depending on that labor will adjust in cost to the value of the labor provided. If you alter the marker to $70 an hour, the value provided didn't really change, only the marker did, thus the elements around that labor will be out of balance, they will be unequal. In a market system, even mixed mode, the market will seek equilibrium. You can pout 10 gallons of water in a 1 gallon jug, but the jug will cast off the excess. You can choose any marker you like for labor, but the market will cast off the excess through inflation.

Outside of a managed economy, the market will always seek equilibrium to the value introduced by any good or service, including labor.

 

[Koios]

Adolescents like Koios have no grasp of economics and finance. That raising the minimum wage will simply spur inflation is a concept far too sophisticated for the sophomoric thinking he engages in.

To the mind of a child, if McDonalds is forced to pay $12 an hour, then the greedy owners will just make a little less profit. Adults understand that McDonalds will simply raise their prices, a lot - since the baker, butcher, warehouse, et al, also had to increase wages. Prices across the board will shoot up. Purchasing power will seek equilibrium - in other words, a dollars worth of work will seek to purchase the same goods after the inflated wage as before. The price of goods and services will simply rise to reach this state.

Then school me on the impact of a $12 minimum wage on the unit labor cost in the US. Can you, bitch?

If so, I'm all fucking ears.

Here, I will make this very simple.
I own a hardware store. My labor cost is 30%. Which is on the high end of the margin.
I pay my people minimum wage. None of them work more than 25 hours per week.
My store is open from 7:30 am to 5pm. Closed on Sunday.
Now, koios steps in and says "I mandate you pay your people twelve dollars per hour.The federal government gave me this power"..
Ok., I have two options. I can increase my prices and risk losing customers who will flee to other businesses with more buying power and naturally charge less for similar items.
Or I can raise the wage but to keep my prices the same, I will let go two of my part time workers.
Either way, my business is going to continue. And I will do what I must to achieve that mission.
Now....We have a large manufacturer of pluming fittings. I supply fixture manufacturers.
My staff is mostly contract labor for which I pay $8 per hour. Only my management people are full time company employees.
Koios comes into my factory and says " the government has given me the authority to tell you that you must now raise your pay rate from $8 per hour to $12 per hour.".
Ok, so here are my options. I can increase the price of the things I make to my customers. In which case they are most likely to flee to other companies that may perhaps import their goods from overseas at a lighter price OR, I can reduce the level of staffing in order to keep my prices the same.
One way or another I am going to keep my business open and profitable. I have a family to feed and full time people to consider.
See how this works?
Now, you can deny all you like. You can seek out the pro labor blogs for assistance. It doesn't matter. One plus one equals two and there is nothing you can do about it.

Perhaps your labor cost target cannot exceed 30% without being at risk of your profit evaporating. But that's a target. And typical retail is nearer 20%, but more effected by volume. Say Bob, your checkout cashier, sells a pencil in the first 20 minutes of his day. Then the next pay period, at around same 20 minutes, Bob sells a chain saw. (tip: as a percentage, Bob just got a lot cheaper)

So retailers set prices based on some minimum margin targets. Then pray shit sells, occassionally taking a margin-hit in liue of getting warm bodies moving through the store. (have a sale). Then if you're making money, terrific. If not, fire Bob and work the counter yourself. Bob is paid what you have to, at minimum. But he has next to nothing to do with how you price-positon your stuff. Pricing it to sell, rules.

And you know that. But you're loathe to pay Bob more and make shit up that seems a plausible reason to keep Bob's pay as low as possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if the public schools are teaching economics at all anymore? There was a time that colleges and universities made at least one unit of economics a mandatory requisite. So they still?

When government provides 'stimulus' for the economy, it has to take money out of the economy in order to do it. No new dollars are introduced into the process. And that is why government expenditures will never have ability to boost the economy as the private sector can.

When wages are artificially increased, some people will have more money to spend which theoretically should boost the economy, but it is taking money out of the other end of the economy providing less money for commerce and industry to expand and grow the economy. No new dollars are introduced into the process and that is why artificial wages and/or price setting tends to do as much damage to the economy as it helps it.

When both prices and wages are allowed to rise and fall via free market forces, and government initiates a tax and regulation policy to encourage calculated risk taking, we will always have the best possible economy. And those who have educated and prepared themselves to take advantage of that will prosper.

Walmart is no different than any other business. It identified the niche in the economy it wants to fill and it does so competently. Therefore it prospers. If it was not providing a product and service attractive to millions of people, it would have to do things differently or close its doors.

Walmart is not the problem.

 

[Koios]

I wonder if the public schools are teaching economics at all anymore? There was a time that colleges and universities made at least one unit of economics a mandatory requisite. So they still?

When government provides 'stimulus' for the economy, it has to take money out of the economy in order to do it. No new dollars are introduced into the process. And that is why government expenditures will never have ability to boost the economy as the private sector can.

When wages are artificially increased, some people will have more money to spend which theoretically should boost the economy, but it is taking money out of the other end of the economy providing less money for commerce and industry to expand and grow the economy. No new dollars are introduced into the process and that is why artificial wages and/or price setting tends to do as much damage to the economy as it helps it.

When both prices and wages are allowed to rise and fall via free market forces, and government initiates a tax and regulation policy to encourage calculated risk taking, we will always have the best possible economy. And those who have educated and prepared themselves to take advantage of that will prosper.

Walmart is no different than any other business. It identified the niche in the economy it wants to fill and it does so competently. Therefore it prospers. If it was not providing a product and service attractive to millions of people, it would have to do things differently or close its doors.

Walmart is not the problem.

Hahahahahaha. Your public grade school economics "education" is showing.

Government does not take money out of the economy. When it borrows, or lends (prints) it puts money in. When it taxes, it moves it somewhere.

No shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What in the HELL are you yammering about?
Look here genius. THere will always be a section of the population that will not ever shop on line.

There are some old geezers who resist change, but in the scheme things they are irrelevant. They'll be dead in 20 years and the newer generation has no prejudice against computers.

These are people who have the need to do business with a person, look at an item before they buy, and have a place where if the item does not meet their needs or is broken, to return it for credit or refund.
Besides, when has there been a law passed prohibiting companies with physical plants from doing business on line?

Small showrooms will always be around. I find voice chat with customer care on sites to be quite pleasant. The market, not law, drives these changes.

Agree. For now though, the brick and mortar presence will still be necessary.

To a certain extent, brick-and-mortar will be necessary until shippers figure out a way to provide instant gratification. Sometimes things simply can't be ordered online, because you can't wait for them. Or because you don't want to. Smart retailers are adjusting to that, and tailoring their instore service to cater to the desire for NOW.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then you do not understand the core value of Kaizen, obviously. So having also been trained in TPS, maybe I can fill you in.

Oh great, I always wanted the 14 year old's perspective...

Good Change (zen kai) is a great concept. Involve people, in a socio-technical way, to shave seconds off production with an emphasis on improved-quality.

That's called "Takt time" son, and is one part of most Kaizen events.

Make it better, and faster if possible, shaving costs. But better rules. And the socio benefit is team cohesiveness, making people feel more connected to the company, and thus provide a benefit in working there that transcends monetary reward, exclusively.

Bwahahahahaha

Right sparky.

Team work IS important, work cells and friendly competition between teams. But one thing you seem to have missed in your search of Wiki, is that Toyota paid as well as UAW shops without the need for Mafia involvement. If TPS were a way to trick gullible workers into finding benefit outside of compensation, how could this be the case?

Well, the fact is that you're talking out of your ass, of course.

Get the most from your people, with minimal pay, truth be told. But that's supposed to be a secret known only to we execs, who cost-justify the training and meeting cost.

Yeah?

Is that what you think lean is?

When you grow up, you'll find out differently.

{Lean manufacturing is a manufacturing strategy that seeks to produce a high level of throughput with a minimum of inventory.}

What is Lean Manufacturing?

 

[Koios]

Then you do not understand the core value of Kaizen, obviously. So having also been trained in TPS, maybe I can fill you in.

Oh great, I always wanted the 14 year old's perspective...

Good Change (zen kai) is a great concept. Involve people, in a socio-technical way, to shave seconds off production with an emphasis on improved-quality.

That's called "Takt time" son, and is one part of most Kaizen events.

Make it better, and faster if possible, shaving costs. But better rules. And the socio benefit is team cohesiveness, making people feel more connected to the company, and thus provide a benefit in working there that transcends monetary reward, exclusively.

Bwahahahahaha

Right sparky.

Team work IS important, work cells and friendly competition between teams. But one thing you seem to have missed in your search of Wiki, is that Toyota paid as well as UAW shops without the need for Mafia involvement. If TPS were a way to trick gullible workers into finding benefit outside of compensation, how could this be the case?

Well, the fact is that you're talking out of your ass, of course.

Get the most from your people, with minimal pay, truth be told. But that's supposed to be a secret known only to we execs, who cost-justify the training and meeting cost.

Yeah?

Is that what you think lean is?

When you grow up, you'll find out differently.

{Lean manufacturing is a manufacturing strategy that seeks to produce a high level of throughput with a minimum of inventory.}

What is Lean Manufacturing?

In the "grown-up" right wing koolaid-drinking fantasy world, businesses do this:

1. Try to get cost down everywhere, except labor; workers get paid the most businesses can afford to pay them, because, well, they're morons (tip: they're not, only the right-wing dipshits on message boards are morons)

2. Labor is X% of sales. When sales go up, businesses give everyone a raise or bonus or whatever so all of that percentage budget is spent. Hahahahahahaha. Fuck me, I am rolling, here.

Need I go on? Any other myths you'd like to have bitch-slapped since ya'll haven't the slightest knowledge of what's politics and actual economics?

Nothing I'd love more than a shot at it. Go hog wild, please.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can believe that because of your savvy of how the economy works.

Most employers don't pay low wages because of any contempt or disrespect or unconcern held for their employees. The smart employer wants a loyal, competent, and happy work force. In times of recession and high unemployment, achieving profits requires accommodation of a much smaller money pool to be spread around among all commercial enterprise. Prices are usually lower and/or there are more discounts or other incentives encouraging people to buy. And there is less money for raises and more benefits.

In a booming economy, there is a much larger money pool to tap into, there is full employment, and it becomes a seller's market for the laborer who can command a higher price for his/her experience and qualifiications. And yes, that generally forces the costs of everything higher, but there is much more ability to pay the higher prices.

Artificially high wages do little to help the economy because they tend to reduce opportunity for employment, and you have more people out of work and draining energy from the economy. Want Walmart to pay its people better and provide more benefits? Encourage the President and Congress to promote tax and regulation policy that encourages the free market to expand and grow across the board and achieve full employment.

I work in technical manufacturing, in an AS9100 TQM environment. There are definite levels. We absolutely do bring in people at minimum wage. However, NO ONE is at minimum wage 4 months after coming in. Two possibilities exist, they are long since fired, or they are bumped up to the next tier. This is the norm in everything except mom and pop business. (which are the ONLY places that keep people at minimum for long periods) People who are good move up quickly. if someone has talent, we send them to training and they make even more. We pay machinists a higher wage than the union shops do, because we want the best - of course we expect a LOT more from them than union shops do, they must have buy-in to the products and the process.

Our forum child, Koios wants to yap about lean as if he really knows what he's talking about. He doesn't. The idea that we would take a dozen people off of a production line making parts, put them in training, design spaghetti charts, track takt time, flow chart a process, involve the operators in eliminating wasted motion, et al, simply to avoid paying them a competitive wage is beyond laughable. A Kaizen event prints money, through efficiency gains and quality improvements. Those involved are paid MORE, not less. And they understand what is going on, that the path to them making more is to have a more profitable business. It's the unions that leave workers in a void, where their efforts have no impact on compensation. We in the free sector base compensation on the contribution of the employee.

 

[Koios]

I can believe that because of your savvy of how the economy works.

Most employers don't pay low wages because of any contempt or disrespect or unconcern held for their employees. The smart employer wants a loyal, competent, and happy work force. In times of recession and high unemployment, achieving profits requires accommodation of a much smaller money pool to be spread around among all commercial enterprise. Prices are usually lower and/or there are more discounts or other incentives encouraging people to buy. And there is less money for raises and more benefits.

In a booming economy, there is a much larger money pool to tap into, there is full employment, and it becomes a seller's market for the laborer who can command a higher price for his/her experience and qualifiications. And yes, that generally forces the costs of everything higher, but there is much more ability to pay the higher prices.

Artificially high wages do little to help the economy because they tend to reduce opportunity for employment, and you have more people out of work and draining energy from the economy. Want Walmart to pay its people better and provide more benefits? Encourage the President and Congress to promote tax and regulation policy that encourages the free market to expand and grow across the board and achieve full employment.

I work in technical manufacturing, in an AS9100 TQM environment. There are definite levels. We absolutely do bring in people at minimum wage. However, NO ONE is at minimum wage 4 months after coming in. Two possibilities exist, they are long since fired, or they are bumped up to the next tier. This is the norm in everything except mom and pop business. (which are the ONLY places that keep people at minimum for long periods) People who are good move up quickly. if someone has talent, we send them to training and they make even more. We pay machinists a higher wage than the union shops do, because we want the best - of course we expect a LOT more from them than union shops do, they must have buy-in to the products and the process.

Our forum child, Koios wants to yap about lean as if he really knows what he's talking about. He doesn't. The idea that we would take a dozen people off of a production line making parts, put them in training, design spaghetti charts, track takt time, flow chart a process, involve the operators in eliminating wasted motion, et al, simply to avoid paying them a competitive wage is beyond laughable. A Kaizen event prints money, through efficiency gains and quality improvements. Those involved are paid MORE, not less. And they understand what is going on, that the path to them making more is to have a more profitable business. It's the unions that leave workers in a void, where their efforts have no impact on compensation. We in the free sector base compensation on the contribution of the employee.

He's a tip that's worked for me when recruited: don't have them open the kimono and show you financials. Ask to have the HR director present at the meeting, and see what their entry-level starting wage is. It speaks volumes about the company, since, any who pay minimum wage, pay the minimum possible all the way up the org chart.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if the public schools are teaching economics at all anymore? There was a time that colleges and universities made at least one unit of economics a mandatory requisite. So they still?

When government provides 'stimulus' for the economy, it has to take money out of the economy in order to do it. No new dollars are introduced into the process. And that is why government expenditures will never have ability to boost the economy as the private sector can.

When wages are artificially increased, some people will have more money to spend which theoretically should boost the economy, but it is taking money out of the other end of the economy providing less money for commerce and industry to expand and grow the economy. No new dollars are introduced into the process and that is why artificial wages and/or price setting tends to do as much damage to the economy as it helps it.

When both prices and wages are allowed to rise and fall via free market forces, and government initiates a tax and regulation policy to encourage calculated risk taking, we will always have the best possible economy. And those who have educated and prepared themselves to take advantage of that will prosper.

Walmart is no different than any other business. It identified the niche in the economy it wants to fill and it does so competently. Therefore it prospers. If it was not providing a product and service attractive to millions of people, it would have to do things differently or close its doors.

Walmart is not the problem.

Hahahahahaha. Your public grade school economics "education" is showing.

Government does not take money out of the economy. When it borrows, or lends (prints) it puts money in. When it taxes, it moves it somewhere.

No shit.

Do you honestly believe that when government prints a dollar that is not tied to real income generated by the economy that it has added a dollar to the economy? Do you honestly think that taxing people does not remove money from the economy? Do you think a tax dollar will be distributed 100% somewhere else in the economy?

And you think I am the one with a public gradeschool education?

 

[Koios]

I wonder if the public schools are teaching economics at all anymore? There was a time that colleges and universities made at least one unit of economics a mandatory requisite. So they still?

When government provides 'stimulus' for the economy, it has to take money out of the economy in order to do it. No new dollars are introduced into the process. And that is why government expenditures will never have ability to boost the economy as the private sector can.

When wages are artificially increased, some people will have more money to spend which theoretically should boost the economy, but it is taking money out of the other end of the economy providing less money for commerce and industry to expand and grow the economy. No new dollars are introduced into the process and that is why artificial wages and/or price setting tends to do as much damage to the economy as it helps it.

When both prices and wages are allowed to rise and fall via free market forces, and government initiates a tax and regulation policy to encourage calculated risk taking, we will always have the best possible economy. And those who have educated and prepared themselves to take advantage of that will prosper.

Walmart is no different than any other business. It identified the niche in the economy it wants to fill and it does so competently. Therefore it prospers. If it was not providing a product and service attractive to millions of people, it would have to do things differently or close its doors.

Walmart is not the problem.

Hahahahahaha. Your public grade school economics "education" is showing.

Government does not take money out of the economy. When it borrows, or lends (prints) it puts money in. When it taxes, it moves it somewhere.

No shit.

Do you honestly believe that when government prints a dollar that is not tied to real income generated by the economy that it has added a dollar to the economy? Do you honestly think that taxing people does not remove money from the economy? Do you think a tax dollar will be distributed 100% somewhere else in the economy?

And you think I am the one with a public gradeschool education?

No. Nor did I contend anything of the sort.

Read back and you'll see that I merely challenged the retarded fucking notion that government takes money out of the economy.

 

[Koios]

I wonder if the public schools are teaching economics at all anymore? There was a time that colleges and universities made at least one unit of economics a mandatory requisite. So they still?

When government provides 'stimulus' for the economy, it has to take money out of the economy in order to do it. No new dollars are introduced into the process. And that is why government expenditures will never have ability to boost the economy as the private sector can.

When wages are artificially increased, some people will have more money to spend which theoretically should boost the economy, but it is taking money out of the other end of the economy providing less money for commerce and industry to expand and grow the economy. No new dollars are introduced into the process and that is why artificial wages and/or price setting tends to do as much damage to the economy as it helps it.

When both prices and wages are allowed to rise and fall via free market forces, and government initiates a tax and regulation policy to encourage calculated risk taking, we will always have the best possible economy. And those who have educated and prepared themselves to take advantage of that will prosper.

Walmart is no different than any other business. It identified the niche in the economy it wants to fill and it does so competently. Therefore it prospers. If it was not providing a product and service attractive to millions of people, it would have to do things differently or close its doors.

Walmart is not the problem.

Hahahahahaha. Your public grade school economics "education" is showing.

Government does not take money out of the economy. When it borrows, or lends (prints) it puts money in. When it taxes, it moves it somewhere.

No shit.

Do you honestly believe that when government prints a dollar that is not tied to real income generated by the economy that it has added a dollar to the economy? Do you honestly think that taxing people does not remove money from the economy? Do you think a tax dollar will be distributed 100% somewhere else in the economy?

And you think I am the one with a public gradeschool education?

Yes; where does it go if not right back into the economy?

 

[Foxfyre]

Hahahahahaha. Your public grade school economics "education" is showing.

Government does not take money out of the economy. When it borrows, or lends (prints) it puts money in. When it taxes, it moves it somewhere.

No shit.

Do you honestly believe that when government prints a dollar that is not tied to real income generated by the economy that it has added a dollar to the economy? Do you honestly think that taxing people does not remove money from the economy? Do you think a tax dollar will be distributed 100% somewhere else in the economy?

And you think I am the one with a public gradeschool education?

No. Nor did I contend anything of the sort.

Read back and you'll see that I merely challenged the retarded fucking notion that government takes money out of the economy.

And that in a nutshell illustrates in huge flashing neon lights that you don't have a clue about how the economy works or what factors are included in it.

 

[Koios]

I wonder if the public schools are teaching economics at all anymore? There was a time that colleges and universities made at least one unit of economics a mandatory requisite. So they still?

When government provides 'stimulus' for the economy, it has to take money out of the economy in order to do it. No new dollars are introduced into the process. And that is why government expenditures will never have ability to boost the economy as the private sector can.

When wages are artificially increased, some people will have more money to spend which theoretically should boost the economy, but it is taking money out of the other end of the economy providing less money for commerce and industry to expand and grow the economy. No new dollars are introduced into the process and that is why artificial wages and/or price setting tends to do as much damage to the economy as it helps it.

When both prices and wages are allowed to rise and fall via free market forces, and government initiates a tax and regulation policy to encourage calculated risk taking, we will always have the best possible economy. And those who have educated and prepared themselves to take advantage of that will prosper.

Walmart is no different than any other business. It identified the niche in the economy it wants to fill and it does so competently. Therefore it prospers. If it was not providing a product and service attractive to millions of people, it would have to do things differently or close its doors.

Walmart is not the problem.

Hahahahahaha. Your public grade school economics "education" is showing.

Government does not take money out of the economy. When it borrows, or lends (prints) it puts money in. When it taxes, it moves it somewhere.

No shit.

Do you honestly believe that when government prints a dollar that is not tied to real income generated by the economy that it has added a dollar to the economy? Do you honestly think that taxing people does not remove money from the economy? Do you think a tax dollar will be distributed 100% somewhere else in the economy?
And you think I am the one with a public gradeschool education?

No. We borrow, too. So for every Dollar in tax, more than a Dollar is spent.

 

[Koios]

I wonder if the public schools are teaching economics at all anymore? There was a time that colleges and universities made at least one unit of economics a mandatory requisite. So they still?

When government provides 'stimulus' for the economy, it has to take money out of the economy in order to do it. No new dollars are introduced into the process. And that is why government expenditures will never have ability to boost the economy as the private sector can.

When wages are artificially increased, some people will have more money to spend which theoretically should boost the economy, but it is taking money out of the other end of the economy providing less money for commerce and industry to expand and grow the economy. No new dollars are introduced into the process and that is why artificial wages and/or price setting tends to do as much damage to the economy as it helps it.

When both prices and wages are allowed to rise and fall via free market forces, and government initiates a tax and regulation policy to encourage calculated risk taking, we will always have the best possible economy. And those who have educated and prepared themselves to take advantage of that will prosper.

Walmart is no different than any other business. It identified the niche in the economy it wants to fill and it does so competently. Therefore it prospers. If it was not providing a product and service attractive to millions of people, it would have to do things differently or close its doors.

Walmart is not the problem.

Hahahahahaha. Your public grade school economics "education" is showing.

Government does not take money out of the economy. When it borrows, or lends (prints) it puts money in. When it taxes, it moves it somewhere.

No shit.

Do you honestly believe that when government prints a dollar that is not tied to real income generated by the economy that it has added a dollar to the economy? Do you honestly think that taxing people does not remove money from the economy? Do you think a tax dollar will be distributed 100% somewhere else in the economy?

And you think I am the one with a public gradeschool education?

Yes; in fact, I thought I was being generous.

 

[Koios]

Do you honestly believe that when government prints a dollar that is not tied to real income generated by the economy that it has added a dollar to the economy? Do you honestly think that taxing people does not remove money from the economy? Do you think a tax dollar will be distributed 100% somewhere else in the economy?

And you think I am the one with a public gradeschool education?

No. Nor did I contend anything of the sort.

Read back and you'll see that I merely challenged the retarded fucking notion that government takes money out of the economy.

And that in a nutshell illustrates in huge flashing neon lights that you don't have a clue about how the economy works or what factors are included in it.

Coming from you, I'm flattered. No shit.

 

[Koios]

Thought experiment for right-wing nincumpoops:

Imagine a Dollar bill. Now follow it along its path of your imagination ...

It's in the net worth of someone who is very well off and spends but a tiny percentage of their income on things they want or need. Just sitting there, until removed via tax by the government. Where's it go from there, if paid to a federal employee, or road contractor, or welfare recipient? Any increased monetary velocity? And where does it end up in the end? Workers, or owners of companies and stocks, from whom it was taken originally? Visualize it, and all the hands that touch it.

Then you'll begin to grasp the magic of progressive taxation (tax money that is less likely to be spent, and spend it into the economy) and the wonderful "redistributive effect" that modern economies depend upon.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. Nor did I contend anything of the sort.

Read back and you'll see that I merely challenged the retarded fucking notion that government takes money out of the economy.

And that in a nutshell illustrates in huge flashing neon lights that you don't have a clue about how the economy works or what factors are included in it.

Coming from you, I'm flattered. No shit.

Okay genius, when Walmart spends a dollar for labor, overhead, or inventory it provides money for the employee to spend, provides jobs for those providing utilities or whatever or for contractors to provide the physical plant, or provides incomes for those who sell them the inventory items. It expects to regain that dollar plus a profit by selling its prodvcts to others. It is rising its own resources when it does that and takes nothing out of the economy.

Please advise us, oh brilliant one, how the government gets the dollar it uses for whatever purpose without first taking that dollar away from somebody.

 

[Koios]

And that in a nutshell illustrates in huge flashing neon lights that you don't have a clue about how the economy works or what factors are included in it.

Coming from you, I'm flattered. No shit.

Okay genius, when Walmart spends a dollar for labor, overhead, or inventory it provides money for the employee to spend, provides jobs for those providing utilities or whatever or for contractors to provide the physical plant, or provides incomes for those who sell them the inventory items. It expects to regain that dollar plus a profit by selling its prodvcts to others. It is rising its own resources when it does that and takes nothing out of the economy.

Please advise us, oh brilliant one, how the government gets the dollar it uses for whatever purpose without first taking that dollar away from somebody.

My pleasure.

Indeed government takes money, however, due to the progressive nature of our tax policy, most comes from stagnant money, and less from folks who are likely to spend all or most of it, which the government does, near instantaneously, and then some, vis a vis borrowing.

It's one way to redistribute a nation's wealth, pumping it back through the economy, and letting it gain momentum on its way back to the top, by which time it's gathered other investment, making it larger.

Another way is higher wages, so that instead of languishing in retained earnings, as the record profits are in an increasing degree, it winds up with workers, who spend it in heartbeat, quite often.

Dollars are pauns we want moving around the board (our economy), which will not happen organically. The natural flow of capital is to the top, where it stagnates, to the detriment of the economic system, from which we all, poor, middle and rich, benefit ... nay, depend upon.

 

[Foxfyre]

Coming from you, I'm flattered. No shit.

Okay genius, when Walmart spends a dollar for labor, overhead, or inventory it provides money for the employee to spend, provides jobs for those providing utilities or whatever or for contractors to provide the physical plant, or provides incomes for those who sell them the inventory items. It expects to regain that dollar plus a profit by selling its prodvcts to others. It is rising its own resources when it does that and takes nothing out of the economy.

Please advise us, oh brilliant one, how the government gets the dollar it uses for whatever purpose without first taking that dollar away from somebody.

My pleasure.

Indeed government takes money, however, due to the progressive nature of our tax policy, most comes from stagnant money, and less from folks who are likely to spend all or most of it, which the government does, near instantaneously, and then some, vis a vis borrowing.

It's one way to redistribute a nation's wealth, pumping it back through the economy, and letting it gain momentum on its way back to the top, by which time it's gathered other investment, making it larger.

Another way is higher wages, so that instead of languishing in retained earnings, as the record profits are in an increasing degree, it winds up with workers, who spend it in heartbeat, quite often.

Dollars are pauns we want moving around the board (our economy), which will not happen organically. The natural flow of capital is to the top, where it stagnates, to the detriment of the economic system, from which we all, poor, middle and rich, benefit ... nay, depend upon.

Spoken like a true Marxist redistributionist.

The rest of us know that the only real prosperity/economic growth comes from value received from value expended.

Definition of economic growth (Economics 100, let alone 101):

An increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, compared from one period of time to another. Economic growth can be measured in nominal terms, which include inflation, or in real terms, which are adjusted for inflation. For comparing one country's economic growth to another, GDP or GNP per capita should be used as these take into account population differences between countries.

Read more: Economic Growth Definition | Investopedia

'

There is no way the government can tax money from the productive, absorb a substantial amount of what taxes it takes just to maintain the same government, and give whatever is left over to those who did not earn it, without diminishing the capacity of the economy to produce goods and services.

And that is why Walmart is of immensely more value to the health of the U.S. economy than any government program can ever be.