Fixing Inequality

[Brain357]

Not directly, but lower taxes leaves more money in the economy for people to spend on consumer goods and for businesses to use for expansion and growth---all of which create jobs.

Without some incentives it will create more low paying jobs. It's naive to think it won't. You still believing in trickle down economics I suppose?

OMG, OK, capitalism sucks, lets guarantee every american 100K per year no matter what job they do or even if they don't have a job.

All equal----------happy now?

You are too fucking dumb to continue this conversation with.

I've not been arguing against capitalism. Do you actually think we have good pure capitalism here? Haha

 

[Bombur]

you gave a reason but did not explain how that reason is applicable.

Please explain how it is inefficient and how it will undermine our democracy.

It is inefficient because it leads to unemployment, underemployment, people in jail, slower growth in demand and therefore supply, more volatility which slows growth long term, increases likelihood and dependence on government aid, destroys communities and harms children(future producers), and more.

As for Democracy being undermined, just look at how important money is now in our democratic process and how people are becoming frustrated. Now imagine how many more years of growing income inequality it will take to break the US. 5 decades? 10 decades?

Growing income inequality is simply unsustainable.

How does it lead to unemployment?

Slower growth in demand?

Huh?

DO you think the manufacturers and retailers expect to stay in business catering to just the 1%?

Or do you think they adjust prices to allow for a greater demand for their goods?

Come on son.....do some thinking.

Don't regurgitate left wing talking points.

Technically it is a weak labor market that leads to both income inequality and unemployment but they both feed back into themselves unless rectified.

Slower growth in production because there is slower growth in demand because there is slower growth in compensation.

No I don't think production expects to stay in business catering to just the 1%.

I would love to hear your price theory argument in more detail.

 

[Bombur]

what do you think drives market prices Bombur....

The top 1% or the remaining 99%?

The fact that Richie Rich has billions should have absolutely no effect on your life at all...

Except maybe envy.

It is a fact that income inequality has an impact on all the things I previously listed.

Sorry.

No.

It is your opinion.

By no means a proven fact.

You should know the difference.

 

[Bombur]

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes.

Equal outcomes are not being argued for.

Congratulations on winning an argument against a pile of straw.

 

[Jarhead]

It is inefficient because it leads to unemployment, underemployment, people in jail, slower growth in demand and therefore supply, more volatility which slows growth long term, increases likelihood and dependence on government aid, destroys communities and harms children(future producers), and more.

As for Democracy being undermined, just look at how important money is now in our democratic process and how people are becoming frustrated. Now imagine how many more years of growing income inequality it will take to break the US. 5 decades? 10 decades?

Growing income inequality is simply unsustainable.

How does it lead to unemployment?

Slower growth in demand?

Huh?

DO you think the manufacturers and retailers expect to stay in business catering to just the 1%?

Or do you think they adjust prices to allow for a greater demand for their goods?

Come on son.....do some thinking.

Don't regurgitate left wing talking points.

Technically it is a weak labor market that leads to both income inequality and unemployment but they both feed back into themselves unless rectified.

Slower growth in production because there is slower growth in demand because there is slower growth in compensation.

No I don't think production expects to stay in business catering to just the 1%.

I would love to hear your price theory argument in more detail.

Better....lets see what happens when I do what you claim the rich do.....

Follow closely...

I make cogs.
I sell 200K cogs a year.
My profit on a cog is 1 dollar so I make 200K a year.
I want to make 300K a year.
So I increase the price accordingly and the demand drops due to the higher price so now I am making only 175K a year.
SO I price it back to where it was and lay off some people decreasing my operating costs BUT also decreasing my productivity...
So now I can only sell 175K cogs due to less people making them for me.
So I increase the price of the cog again and now demand is even lower because not only are they too expensive, but thanks to me and my rich friends laying off people, we now have less people able to buy cogs.
SO now I am only making 150K

Sorry son.....you may be book smart....but not practical smart.....

 

[francoHFW]

The bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in all taxes and fees, everyone else 21 per cent...When the richest's wealth at LEAST triples under a tax system, and the rest stay the same for 30 years, and the country goes to hell, the richest aren't paying enough DUH. Also seems to be the way to prevent obscenities like CEOs now making on average over 300x what the average employee does, when it was 40 in 1970. Pub dupes...change the channel...

 

[Jarhead]

Now...if you want to bring up an honest discussion for debate.....then why not go this way....

The issue is technology. Nothing more.

I used to need 4 receptionists to answer 100 lines.

Each was paid 30K.

Now we have voicemail and direct lines......so I only need one receptionist to handle the overflow....

It cost me 100K for the system, but I save 90K a year in salary.

Argument...

Should I get to keep that savings.....or pay all of my remaining employees more?

And THAT is a valid argument.

Not this crap about the rich firing people to make more money.

Its about business owners growing with technology.

 

[Bombur]

How does it lead to unemployment?

Slower growth in demand?

Huh?

DO you think the manufacturers and retailers expect to stay in business catering to just the 1%?

Or do you think they adjust prices to allow for a greater demand for their goods?

Come on son.....do some thinking.

Don't regurgitate left wing talking points.

Technically it is a weak labor market that leads to both income inequality and unemployment but they both feed back into themselves unless rectified.

Slower growth in production because there is slower growth in demand because there is slower growth in compensation.

No I don't think production expects to stay in business catering to just the 1%.

I would love to hear your price theory argument in more detail.

Better....lets see what happens when I do what you claim the rich do.....

Follow closely...

I make cogs.
I sell 200K cogs a year.
My profit on a cog is 1 dollar so I make 200K a year.
I want to make 300K a year.
So I increase the price accordingly and the demand drops due to the higher price so now I am making only 175K a year.
SO I price it back to where it was and lay off some people decreasing my operating costs BUT also decreasing my productivity...
So now I can only sell 175K cogs due to less people making them for me.
So I increase the price of the cog again and now demand is even lower because not only are they too expensive, but thanks to me and my rich friends laying off people, we now have less people able to buy cogs.
SO now I am only making 150K

Sorry son.....you may be book smart....but not practical smart.....

Actually one of the hardest things about economics is understanding the difference between decisions like the one you describe and systems that rely on all sides of the equation that act more like a cycle than a simple micro economic decision.

Productivity is increasing all the time but production is not just limited by capacity but demand. Demand must grow.

 

[bendog]

Wrong, bigger government is the cause of income inequality, not the result of it.

why do you libs always have everything backwards?

That's funny. We have obamacare because the rich no longer give good benefits. So government makes a program. Corporate welfare.

We have so many people on welfare because the rich wanted more profits and shipped jobs overseas.

Social security and Medicare are huge because companies keep more profits and no longer give pensions and healthcare into retirement. More corporate welfare.

I could go on and on. More inequality equals more big government. Wake up.

All lies.

the vast majority of americans were happy with their healthcare policies

jobs went overseas because of unions and taxes, businesses could not survive in the US so they moved.

social security and medicare have nothing to do with corporate profits, where do you get this crap?

People who have employer sponsored insurance are generally happy with it. You are right that medicare and soc sec have no impact upon corp profits, and thus you unwittingly make the argument for taxing the 400 who own as much as the bottom 20% or so (who have medicaid by and large) and using the money to provide healthcare to workers who don't have it, because that, as your post points out, would have neglible effect on corp profits. Which are good things, btw, because they mean jobs.

 

[Brain357]

Now...if you want to bring up an honest discussion for debate.....then why not go this way....

The issue is technology. Nothing more.

I used to need 4 receptionists to answer 100 lines.

Each was paid 30K.

Now we have voicemail and direct lines......so I only need one receptionist to handle the overflow....

It cost me 100K for the system, but I save 90K a year in salary.

Argument...

Should I get to keep that savings.....or pay all of my remaining employees more?

And THAT is a valid argument.

Not this crap about the rich firing people to make more money.

Its about business owners growing with technology.

Ah yes the lovely technology of phone systems, such a joy. And then you lucky you get someone who speaks English. Maybe you haven't noticed but a lot of call centers are overseas.

 

[Defiant1]

what do you think drives market prices Bombur....

The top 1% or the remaining 99%?

The fact that Richie Rich has billions should have absolutely no effect on your life at all...

Except maybe envy.

It is a fact that income inequality has an impact on all the things I previously listed.

Sorry.

No, it's not a fact. It is your opinion and you have yet to back up your opinion with any facts.

 

[Jarhead]

Technically it is a weak labor market that leads to both income inequality and unemployment but they both feed back into themselves unless rectified.

Slower growth in production because there is slower growth in demand because there is slower growth in compensation.

No I don't think production expects to stay in business catering to just the 1%.

I would love to hear your price theory argument in more detail.

Better....lets see what happens when I do what you claim the rich do.....

Follow closely...

I make cogs.
I sell 200K cogs a year.
My profit on a cog is 1 dollar so I make 200K a year.
I want to make 300K a year.
So I increase the price accordingly and the demand drops due to the higher price so now I am making only 175K a year.
SO I price it back to where it was and lay off some people decreasing my operating costs BUT also decreasing my productivity...
So now I can only sell 175K cogs due to less people making them for me.
So I increase the price of the cog again and now demand is even lower because not only are they too expensive, but thanks to me and my rich friends laying off people, we now have less people able to buy cogs.
SO now I am only making 150K

Sorry son.....you may be book smart....but not practical smart.....

Actually one of the hardest things about economics is understanding the difference between decisions like the one you describe and systems that rely on all sides of the equation that act more like a cycle than a simple micro economic decision.

Productivity is increasing all the time but production is not just limited by capacity but demand. Demand must grow.

No.
Demand must not decrease....but not necessarily grow.

How can the rich get richer if demand for their goods and services decreases?

If demand for my product decreases due to me and my friends laying off employees...OR....if productivity decreases, because my greed had me make the knee jerk decision to lay people off so I can take more home...

What happens?

I make less money.

So why would I do it?

You see....what you claim is the problem has a contradiction.

My greed is not the problem for my greed will result in me making less money.

 

[Bombur]

Now...if you want to bring up an honest discussion for debate.....then why not go this way....

The issue is technology. Nothing more.

I used to need 4 receptionists to answer 100 lines.

Each was paid 30K.

Now we have voicemail and direct lines......so I only need one receptionist to handle the overflow....

It cost me 100K for the system, but I save 90K a year in salary.

Argument...

Should I get to keep that savings.....or pay all of my remaining employees more?

And THAT is a valid argument.

Not this crap about the rich firing people to make more money.

Its about business owners growing with technology.

What really matters in this scenario is demand. If you are a producer in say China and you can tap US demand you could potentially keep all of your employees, increase wages, and lower prices all while increasing profits.

If you are in a situation where demand for your product is stagnant an increase in production can actually work against itself in the short term because of the downward pressure on labor inherent in increases in productivity.

On the flip side if you didn't have access to that 100K you couldn't afford the system and productivity wouldn't increase as fast.

 

[Defiant1]

Now...if you want to bring up an honest discussion for debate.....then why not go this way....

The issue is technology. Nothing more.

I used to need 4 receptionists to answer 100 lines.

Each was paid 30K.

Now we have voicemail and direct lines......so I only need one receptionist to handle the overflow....

It cost me 100K for the system, but I save 90K a year in salary.

Argument...

Should I get to keep that savings.....or pay all of my remaining employees more?

And THAT is a valid argument.

Not this crap about the rich firing people to make more money.

Its about business owners growing with technology.

Ah yes the lovely technology of phone systems, such a joy. And then you lucky you get someone who speaks English. Maybe you haven't noticed but a lot of call centers are overseas.

Should there be a law that the phone centers have to be here?

 

[francoHFW]

So, hater dupes have no clue about the OP- I'M STUNNED LOL...

 

[Jarhead]

Now...if you want to bring up an honest discussion for debate.....then why not go this way....

The issue is technology. Nothing more.

I used to need 4 receptionists to answer 100 lines.

Each was paid 30K.

Now we have voicemail and direct lines......so I only need one receptionist to handle the overflow....

It cost me 100K for the system, but I save 90K a year in salary.

Argument...

Should I get to keep that savings.....or pay all of my remaining employees more?

And THAT is a valid argument.

Not this crap about the rich firing people to make more money.

Its about business owners growing with technology.

Ah yes the lovely technology of phone systems, such a joy. And then you lucky you get someone who speaks English. Maybe you haven't noticed but a lot of call centers are overseas.

Well, we could no longer be allowed to send jobs overseas....

But what will happen then?

Sony will pull out of the US.

Toyota.

Nissan.

I can go on....and we will lose as many jobs as we gain.

No. That is not the issue either.

The issue is simple.

R and D...the backbone of industrialization.....has reached a point where it is eliminating manpower...not just increasing efficiency....but eliminating the need for people.

I used receptionist....you transferred it to call center......a receptionist is not a CSR (just saying)...

How about secretaries.

An office used to have 1 per every 2 execs.

Now?

With WP, Excel, graphics capabilities, high speed copiers?

One secretary per 6 execs.

No binders needed. No copy staff. One in mailroom as opposed to 10 thanks to email.

No need for elevator operators.

It used to take 1 man to turn a lathe manually to turn 10 bars of stock into screws.

Now?

One man to calibrate the computer and bam....100 bars if stock turned in a day.

 

[Bombur]

what do you think drives market prices Bombur....

The top 1% or the remaining 99%?

The fact that Richie Rich has billions should have absolutely no effect on your life at all...

Except maybe envy.

It is a fact that income inequality has an impact on all the things I previously listed.

Sorry.

No, it's not a fact. It is your opinion and you have yet to back up your opinion with any facts.

Growing income inequality is really a symptom of the problem more so than the direct cause but it can also be a cause for some of the problems. The more direct cause is a weak labor market combined with some other factors.

At this point I am not sure what facts you have a problem with.

 

[Brain357]

Now...if you want to bring up an honest discussion for debate.....then why not go this way....

The issue is technology. Nothing more.

I used to need 4 receptionists to answer 100 lines.

Each was paid 30K.

Now we have voicemail and direct lines......so I only need one receptionist to handle the overflow....

It cost me 100K for the system, but I save 90K a year in salary.

Argument...

Should I get to keep that savings.....or pay all of my remaining employees more?

And THAT is a valid argument.

Not this crap about the rich firing people to make more money.

Its about business owners growing with technology.

Ah yes the lovely technology of phone systems, such a joy. And then you lucky you get someone who speaks English. Maybe you haven't noticed but a lot of call centers are overseas.

Should there be a law that the phone centers have to be here?

Tax incentives to have your call center here would be nice.

 

[bendog]

So, hater dupes have no clue about the OP- I'M STUNNED LOL...

Well, the OP sort of uwittingly parrots halfway the Rohmer econ concept that if you set up a free trade zone with absolutely no labor/environmental reguations, and no tax, capital will go there. But the Rohmer concept never suggested that as a long term way to create a sustainable society. I most likely will, however, produce an influx of capital

But the OP is irrelevant to income inequality, so on that issue, I think the posts wisely try to ignore it.

 

[Jarhead]

Ah yes the lovely technology of phone systems, such a joy. And then you lucky you get someone who speaks English. Maybe you haven't noticed but a lot of call centers are overseas.

Should there be a law that the phone centers have to be here?

Tax incentives to have your call center here would be nice.

And Japan will say....heck with that and give Nissan and Sony tax incentives to keep THEIR jobs at home.

Not the answer.