The Rich Are Getting Richer!

[Boss]

Well yes, and 4 out of 5 Americans face poverty during their life time and this is one of the outcomes of the widening gap between the rich and the poor

Sorry, but this is just not true. People do not become poor because the rich get richer. Keeping people from becoming wealthy, will not eliminate people becoming poorer. In fact, the total opposite is what happens. Making it more difficult to become rich, only hurts people who haven't yet become rich.... that would include ALL poor people.

It is true that preventing the rich from getting richer doesn't solve the poverty problem and return the middle class to the society. Yet, a society with a huge gap between the rich and poor only reflects a business environment with low opportunities, where regular people who work one or two jobs to pay their bills can never dream of improving their conditions. Where as the rich minority, who in most cases are the corrupt people and those in power will only feed of the sweat of the many poor hardworking citizen.

Woah... wait a minute... go look at the graph Tania posted from US Census data... it shows the middle class became the new rich, so if you are going to "return the middle class" you have to pull them down from the wealthy class. The middle class are not dropping into poverty, because the poor are relatively the same. The middle class is shrinking and the rich are increasing.

Regular people are working one or two jobs to pay their bills because the government keeps adding burdens to capitalists and causing the prices to increase. Adding taxes to the paychecks of regular people as well. Putting restrictions on businesses to keep them from hiring as they may normally do, so as to avoid the added costs. In short, you're doing everything you can to keep people from gaining wealth, because "wealth" has somehow become a bad word.

 

[Boss]

Do you need to know what that line represents? Here's a good definition:

I don't need a definition, I understand what productivity means. You should try reading my entire post before commenting on a single sentence. The line doesn't tell us that computers dramatically changed the level of productivity in America. It's just a red line that goes up, while the wage line remains the same... except for 2008 to the present, where Marxists have tried to control free market capitalism. It isn't fucking working, the capitalists aren't playing along. They aren't willingly giving up their profits for the sake of social justice, and you're not going to ever be able to force them to. The ONLY solution to the problem here, is to enable more people to enjoy a free market capitalist system, by lifting the burdens on wealth earning and making it easier to become wealthy. Marxists don't want to do this, because that means they don't get to control people anymore. They need the masses to be more dependent on government and the state to provide for them, so they can become the Ruling Class.

 

[Boss]

Why would I have to define productivity?

In order to have an honest and objective debate about it. That's why.

 

[Kimura]

Why would I have to define productivity?

In order to have an honest and objective debate about it. That's why.

If you don't know what productivity entails, that's a bigger problem than your inability to comprehend aggregated data.

 

[Boss]

What are you talking about? We're not telling firms to pay anyone anything.

Uhm... Yes, you are. Since 2008, your government has implemented TONS of legislation, telling capitalists exactly what to provide for full time employees, what they MUST do, if they have over 50 full-time employees... so these companies are reducing their workforces and hiring more part time workers, to avoid the pitfalls. Obama is clamoring for a $9.00 minimum wage, which would only drive up the prices of basic goods and services in the private sector.

 

[Kimura]

Sorry, but this is just not true. People do not become poor because the rich get richer. Keeping people from becoming wealthy, will not eliminate people becoming poorer. In fact, the total opposite is what happens. Making it more difficult to become rich, only hurts people who haven't yet become rich.... that would include ALL poor people.

It is true that preventing the rich from getting richer doesn't solve the poverty problem and return the middle class to the society. Yet, a society with a huge gap between the rich and poor only reflects a business environment with low opportunities, where regular people who work one or two jobs to pay their bills can never dream of improving their conditions. Where as the rich minority, who in most cases are the corrupt people and those in power will only feed of the sweat of the many poor hardworking citizen.

I wouldn't say they're corrupt. Capitalists are just playing the role they have in society. Workers produce goods, capitalists control this process, no? Then, if fewer restrictions are placed on capitalists (as the "supply-siders" base their economic policy on), then they will extenuate inequality, merely acting in their own self-interest.

Good points.

Capitalists tend to be seek out economic rent to obtain a greater percentage of value than is given to workers, regardless of their contributions to productivity. As they accumulate more wealth and income, they can then influence the political process. And the Ferris wheel of income inequality continues down the road to neo-feudal serfdom....

 

[Boss]

Why would I have to define productivity?

In order to have an honest and objective debate about it. That's why.

If you don't know what productivity entails, that's a bigger problem than your inability to comprehend aggregated data.

But I do know, which is why I challenged your graph. It doesn't show the reason productivity skyrocketed since 1995, which was largely due to the personal computer. It just makes it appear that capitalists are squeezing more productivity out of the poor workers who aren't being compensated for it. Now, since 2008, when you see the sharp downturn in average wages, and productivity continues to rise, albeit at a lesser rate, that's precisely what is happening. They are laying off full time workers and hiring more part time workers, who they can pay less to do the same amount of work, or in some cases, more work. But this is more the effect of government mandates and regulations than anything the capitalist is choosing to do on their own.

 

[Sallow]

For the most part, not in all cases, but mostly, the wealthy people got to be wealthy because they had the motivation and drive to succeed, more drive and motivation than poorer people. .

That's almost complete bullshit.

The Majority of rich people are rich by birth. The ones that do make it are generally completely ruthless scumbags.

But do keep up your worship.

Nonsense. You need desperately to prop up this perception of things, because that is the ONLY way the public will give up economic freedom for [the empty promise of] economic security. This was much easier for the Marxist and Maoists across Europe and Asia, because they actually did have tyrants and kings, systems of law favoring the elite and burdening the poor, and no opportunity at all for the common people.

However, in the US, we have a free market capitalist system of free enterprise, where people like Oprah Winfrey can emerge from Mississippi tar shacks and become among the wealthiest people in America. She wasn't a ruthless scumbag, she had drive and determination, she worked hard and refused to be a 'victim'. She is one person, but there are millions of people like her, who we never hear of because they aren't entertainers, who have overcome adversity and poverty, to become uber-successful under our system. There are far more billionaires and millionaires today than even 20 years ago, so these are not people who were born into wealth, they've only earned it over a generation. But you MUST promote a perception, your ENTIRE socialist argument depends on this perception. Without it, you can't make your argument even seem reasonable to the morons out there.

Now you have what you have, which is about 35~40% of America who has simply been brainwashed because they were largely ignorant and uneducated, and too lazy to think. They are tricked into believing this is a game, a political contest of their "team" who wants to "help people" by doing things for them, like giving out free health care... how's that working for ya? They'll make sure they have good jobs with fair pay.... how's that working out? These people will likely go through their entire life, believing the glory days are just around the corner, as our once great free market system which enabled so many poor people to become wealthy, completely gets destroyed and replaced with Marxism.

Tell you what.

Lets take government completely out of the mix.

Lets just have 20 or so super wealthy people and hundreds of thousands of poor.

No cops, no army no nothing between them.

And see how it works out.

 

[Kimura]

In order to have an honest and objective debate about it. That's why.

If you don't know what productivity entails, that's a bigger problem than your inability to comprehend aggregated data.

But I do know, which is why I challenged your graph. It doesn't show the reason productivity skyrocketed since 1995, which was largely due to the personal computer.

Yeah, it's called a productivity enhancement.

It just makes it appear that capitalists are squeezing more productivity out of the poor workers who aren't being compensated for it. Now, since 2008, when you see the sharp downturn in average wages, and productivity continues to rise, albeit at a lesser rate, that's precisely what is happening. They are laying off full time workers and hiring more part time workers, who they can pay less to do the same amount of work, or in some cases, more work. But this is more the effect of government mandates and regulations than anything the capitalist is choosing to do on their own.

Um, productivity enhancements, such a technological innovations, supply chain improvements, etc. have all helped increase productivity across the board.

The bigger issue is whether middle and lower income folks are seeing their real-wage increase with these gains in productivity. They obviously aren't. Guess where it's going?

What government mandates and regulations? This reminds me of some op-ed in Forbes that actually argued for less jobs.

 

[Boss]

That's almost complete bullshit.

The Majority of rich people are rich by birth. The ones that do make it are generally completely ruthless scumbags.

But do keep up your worship.

Nonsense. You need desperately to prop up this perception of things, because that is the ONLY way the public will give up economic freedom for [the empty promise of] economic security. This was much easier for the Marxist and Maoists across Europe and Asia, because they actually did have tyrants and kings, systems of law favoring the elite and burdening the poor, and no opportunity at all for the common people.

However, in the US, we have a free market capitalist system of free enterprise, where people like Oprah Winfrey can emerge from Mississippi tar shacks and become among the wealthiest people in America. She wasn't a ruthless scumbag, she had drive and determination, she worked hard and refused to be a 'victim'. She is one person, but there are millions of people like her, who we never hear of because they aren't entertainers, who have overcome adversity and poverty, to become uber-successful under our system. There are far more billionaires and millionaires today than even 20 years ago, so these are not people who were born into wealth, they've only earned it over a generation. But you MUST promote a perception, your ENTIRE socialist argument depends on this perception. Without it, you can't make your argument even seem reasonable to the morons out there.

Now you have what you have, which is about 35~40% of America who has simply been brainwashed because they were largely ignorant and uneducated, and too lazy to think. They are tricked into believing this is a game, a political contest of their "team" who wants to "help people" by doing things for them, like giving out free health care... how's that working for ya? They'll make sure they have good jobs with fair pay.... how's that working out? These people will likely go through their entire life, believing the glory days are just around the corner, as our once great free market system which enabled so many poor people to become wealthy, completely gets destroyed and replaced with Marxism.

Tell you what.

Lets take government completely out of the mix.

Lets just have 20 or so super wealthy people and hundreds of thousands of poor.

No cops, no army no nothing between them.

And see how it works out.

That's EXACTLY what you have in a Socialist, Marxist, Communist or Maoist regime. It works out with MILLIONS being executed, as the Ruling Class confiscates their assets and eliminates the burden of caring for them. This has happened repeatedly in world history.

What HASN'T worked out that way, is the idea of free market, free enterprise, capitalism. Where the poorest of the poor can have the opportunity to succeed and gain wealth. It works much better when government gets the hell out of the way, and encourages wealth acquisition, instead of trying to punish success.

 

[Rshermr]

Nonsense. You need desperately to prop up this perception of things, because that is the ONLY way the public will give up economic freedom for [the empty promise of] economic security. This was much easier for the Marxist and Maoists across Europe and Asia, because they actually did have tyrants and kings, systems of law favoring the elite and burdening the poor, and no opportunity at all for the common people.

However, in the US, we have a free market capitalist system of free enterprise, where people like Oprah Winfrey can emerge from Mississippi tar shacks and become among the wealthiest people in America. She wasn't a ruthless scumbag, she had drive and determination, she worked hard and refused to be a 'victim'. She is one person, but there are millions of people like her, who we never hear of because they aren't entertainers, who have overcome adversity and poverty, to become uber-successful under our system. There are far more billionaires and millionaires today than even 20 years ago, so these are not people who were born into wealth, they've only earned it over a generation. But you MUST promote a perception, your ENTIRE socialist argument depends on this perception. Without it, you can't make your argument even seem reasonable to the morons out there.

Now you have what you have, which is about 35~40% of America who has simply been brainwashed because they were largely ignorant and uneducated, and too lazy to think. They are tricked into believing this is a game, a political contest of their "team" who wants to "help people" by doing things for them, like giving out free health care... how's that working for ya? They'll make sure they have good jobs with fair pay.... how's that working out? These people will likely go through their entire life, believing the glory days are just around the corner, as our once great free market system which enabled so many poor people to become wealthy, completely gets destroyed and replaced with Marxism.

Tell you what.

Lets take government completely out of the mix.

Lets just have 20 or so super wealthy people and hundreds of thousands of poor.

No cops, no army no nothing between them.

And see how it works out.

That's EXACTLY what you have in a Socialist, Marxist, Communist or Maoist regime. It works out with MILLIONS being executed, as the Ruling Class confiscates their assets and eliminates the burden of caring for them. This has happened repeatedly in world history.

What HASN'T worked out that way, is the idea of free market, free enterprise, capitalism. Where the poorest of the poor can have the opportunity to succeed and gain wealth. It works much better when government gets the hell out of the way, and encourages wealth acquisition, instead of trying to punish success.

And on que, the paid con tool appears. Nothing new here. Just the same drivel from the bat shit crazy con web sites boss lives in. No ability for conversation. Boss just posts conservative dogma. Or, better described, drivel.

Ever notice those wealthy folks getting punished?? Hell, if it was as boss said, they would move to some completely laisses faire country, if there were one. And yes, indeed, in boss' world, as long as the wealthy get more so, all is well. Boss is owned. He is not going to have a rational discussion. Spends his time spewing drivel about marxists. Who actually do not exist, except in bosses pin head. And, of course, the bat shit crazy con web sites he frequents.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The rich are getting richer because the government is printing more money. That's how it works with fiat currency. The rich are rich because of a variety of means, but one tendency is also true, they tend to know how to keep their wealth and how to get more. So, if the central bank keeps pumping out more money, logic dictates that it will get funneled straight to the people who know how to suck it in.

Capitalists think that rich people who run businesses create jobs. Statists think that consumers create jobs. The fact is they are both right. Wealth and jobs are both created via the "circle of life" that exists between consumers and businesses. Without this symbiotic relationship, wealth stagnates as the rich hold onto it, and the middle class suffers because they're not making the money that will buy the products and thus keep that circle alive. In a struggling economy with a failing middle class, and a central bank cranking out more fiat currency, this problem only exacerbates, with the rich grabbing onto the extra money like they're good at doing, with the middle class seeing little to none of it except through whatever welfare programs the money is intended to provide.

The problems of the economy cannot be pinned on high taxes, because if one knows history, one knows that the enormous economic boom that followed WWII happened with tax rates double what they are now, and plenty of government spending going on to develop supporting infrastructure such as the Interstate Highway System, electrical grids, and airports, to name a few.

The problems of the economy cannot be pinned on the rich, because they are half of the circle of life that creates jobs and wealth. The self-centered motivation to get ahead, to succeed, to better one's peers, while not everything, is an important part of economic growth. But it cannot do anything in a vacuum. The symbiotic circle between consumers and businesses is everything to economic growth.

I like a lot of what you are saying here, it makes sense and is well articulated. However, there are a couple of points I feel compelled to make. When the government does 'quantitative easing' ...printing more currency... it hurts everyone, rich people included, because it devalues the dollar. The rich may not feel the effects as much, because...well, they are rich. But their portfolios and assets are still measured in "dollars" which become worth less and less.

True. It hurts everyone.

The economic boon following WWII, was caused by the return of soldiers from the war, and a sense of national jubilation and pride in winning the war. It did not matter that top marginal income tax rates were high, the level of increased consumerism drove the economy for about a decade or so, into the 1950s. This was purely the middle class, consuming and buying, purchasing new homes, baby booming their way to the 1960s. By the early 60s, we started to see another economic downturn, and President Kennedy proposed lowering the top marginal rates, on the argument that "a rising tide floats all boats."

Precisely. Consumer confidence and spending was a big factor. This factor undermines the idea of supply-side economics. The point was not that the economic boom was because of higher taxes, but rather that it was in spite of higher taxes and more due to consumers having some money to spend and spending it. Where do you think a lot of the money came from? G.I.'s whose money came from the government, well, initially at least. I'm not saying that the supply side is not important. It is. But when it came to the post WWII boom, most of that was fueled by consumers with money to spend, and in the midst of tax rates double what they are now. This flies in the face of those who think that the supply side is what fuels economic growth.

Now, what happens when you reduce the top marginal rates is, those who have wealth socked away in security trusts, take that money out and earn income with it at the new lower rate, because they have the means to do so. They simply will not do this when the tax rates are high, because they can make more money leaving their wealth in securities. The thing is, it doesn't really matter to a rich person, what you do with the income tax rates, they don't care. They don't have to earn incomes, they are wealthy people. If you say, well... we'll just tax the hell out of security investments... okay, you can tax US treasury earnings, and when you raise those rates, the rich person simply moves the money into foreign securities you cannot tax. Now you have a bigger problem, because there is no wealth backing US treasury bonds anymore. Therefore, you now have a devalued dollar and defunded treasury... not a good thing in bad economic times. The more you attempt to "punish" people for earning wealth, the less wealth earning you will get. Common sense should tell us this.

All of that is true, but it is one half of the picture. The other half is consumers spending money and making product development and production necessary. The two halves together = jobs.

 

[Boss]

Precisely. Consumer confidence and spending was a big factor. This factor undermines the idea of supply-side economics. The point was not that the economic boom was because of higher taxes, but rather that it was in spite of higher taxes and more due to consumers having some money to spend and spending it. Where do you think a lot of the money came from? G.I.'s whose money came from the government, well, initially at least. I'm not saying that the supply side is not important. It is. But when it came to the post WWII boom, most of that was fueled by consumers with money to spend, and in the midst of tax rates double what they are now. This flies in the face of those who think that the supply side is what fuels economic growth.

I disagree that it "undermines" supply side economics. As you said, the economic boon can be driven by either/or. GIs returning from the war, represent a middle class with plenty of money to spend, and they did get that money from the US government for fighting the war. But today, we don't have hundreds of thousands of returning GIs from a world war, so there is no money to spend in the middle class. The same thing happened in the early 60s, as the money ran out from the GIs returning from WWII, so the solution was to lower top marginal tax rates and free up some money. In any event, something has to free up some money for the economy to boon, that is understood, or should be understood. Currently, we have a crop of liberal politicians running things, who want to punish the wealthy more, raise the tax rates, the opposite of what Kennedy advocated. There is no magic money fairy, so we sit and watch the economy stagnate.

All of that is true, but it is one half of the picture. The other half is consumers spending money and making product development and production necessary. The two halves together = jobs.

It's not that it's "half the picture" just the relevant part of the picture at this time. Consumers can't spend what they don't have to spend. Now, wealthy people are consumers too, and if we ease tax burdens on the wealthy, they will spend. When they spend, it creates more jobs, producing the products they are buying, and this trickles down to the middle class, who then have more disposable income to spend. When Reagan lowered the top marginal rates to 28%, the result was an economic boon that lasted until 1990, when Bush 41 raised the rates and un-did what Reagan had done. Clinton raised the top marginal rates again, and further stalled the supply side effect. G.W. Bush lowered the top marginal rate, but also lowered all the rates, and this helped a little, but then the dotcom bubble burst, then the financial crisis hit, and here we are again, with a high top marginal rate and stagnating economy.

There are basically two ways to fix this... Get into another World War, or lower the top marginal rates again. I am more in favor of the later.

 

[Boss]

And on que, the paid con tool appears. Nothing new here. Just the same drivel from the bat shit crazy con web sites boss lives in. No ability for conversation. Boss just posts conservative dogma. Or, better described, drivel.

Ever notice those wealthy folks getting punished?? Hell, if it was as boss said, they would move to some completely laisses faire country, if there were one. And yes, indeed, in boss' world, as long as the wealthy get more so, all is well. Boss is owned. He is not going to have a rational discussion. Spends his time spewing drivel about marxists. Who actually do not exist, except in bosses pin head. And, of course, the bat shit crazy con web sites he frequents.

LMAO... it is flattering to know that you believe I am so fucking good at totally schooling your ass, that someone MUST be paying me! I just wish I knew where to collect my checks! Do you think if I wrote to those Koch Brothers, they'd send me some bank? I could sure as hell use some! Maybe I should start a BLOG site? Seems to be the popular way to influence people these days, and be taken seriously.

You mention that if what I said were true, the wealthy would be moving to laissez faire countries, and this is an excellent opportunity to point out, over $20 trillion American dollars currently reside in foreign banks and investments. This number is growing every year, so... in a very real sense, that is EXACTLY what is happening. Of course, the people themselves aren't moving, but they don't have to. The water is better here, they have all the luxuries of home, and they are doing just fine in this shitty economy for everyone else. Their money is elsewhere, and it will stay elsewhere, as long as Marxist Socialist with an anti-capitalist agenda are in charge.

 

[AmazonTania]

Good afternoon everyone. Sorry I've been gone for so long, but thankfully majority of the forum is still just as clueless as before I left, so we can pick up where we left off. And I am also understanding that many of your have a difficult time desecting the Census data, so here is a full detailed display of it. (Family Incomes Chart 696). Although, I had to create my own chart to adjust for errors. The chart should actually look more like this:

There. It's kinda different, but ultimately the information is the same. And yes, I created this graph using Census Bureau data. If you don't like it, take it up with the Census Bureau. I also created one based on individual quintles, which doesn't tell you very much.

Which is why I created one with historical movement:

Which still doesn't tell you very much, but movement is much more volatile. Keep in mind that these incomes are in real wages. If you are following very closely, you can see that majority of the quintles have not seen an increase in their wages. But the Top income earners have seen their incomes increase? Does this necessarily means that middle/lower class incomes have remained stagnant? Not at all. People move up and down income brackets all the time. You are not going to see this transform by merely following statistical categories snapshot data You are only going to see this growth by following flesh and blood individuals overtime.

For example, three quarters of Americans who were at the bottom 20% in 1975 were in the Top 40% 16 years later. Also, among 25 year olds and older who filed their income taxes in 1996 had a 91% increase in their incomes by 2005. Also people in the Top 1% who filed their income returns in 1996 had a 26% drop in their incomes by 2005.

The fact is, the lower/middle class incomes are not stagnant, in real or nominal terms. As my first chart shows, the percentage distribution of families in the middle class have decreased, but the families earning lower incomes has not increased. This suggested that the low middle class is becoming the new upper middle class and rich. While the lower income family distribution remains stagnant, this is attributed to lower income families increasing their income and the new families entering the workforce (younger families, migrants, etc) become the new working poor.

People start off poor and then gradually become rich. That's generally how it works. The idea that the middle class incomes are stagnant or have fallen (real or nominal) is largely a myth.

 

[AmazonTania]

One additional point, to those who believe that real wages have not kept up with productivity. That might be half-true. Generally productivity is measured in total hours worked, as well as GDP per hours worked In terms of both, the US is either the most productivity in the world. There may be a few inconsistencies:

1. The United States works far more hours most countries, but has just as much output as countries such as France, Germany, Ireland, and Norway.
2. The United States is the largest economy in the world, and yet, it barely overshadows smaller economies in terms of productivity. In an economy, there are very different types of labor in a production process, each one different from the other. There for, it doesn't make much sense to divide something by an aggregate of heterogeneous units

Hence, productivity should be taken with a grain of salt, as with most economic data computed with a broad scope (GDP, CPI, etc). The United States may be more efficient and more productive, but what exactly do Americans spend more of their productive time doing, and why are they so efficient at it, despite the fact that wages are stagnant?

Well, most people do believe wages has lagged behind productivity, so:

Seeing that Americans are more efficient at taking my orders at AppleBees, we can see that the wages don't often warrant the productivity. Majority of the jobs which did warrant the productivity are being replaced with low-skilled, low-wage service sector jobs.

Although the decline in manufacturing is on a global scale (and excepted as countries industrialise more), the US is among the few who barely can keep it's manufacturing output as a percentage of GDP above the global average.

Is a decline in manufacturing actually a good thing? Don't know, don't care. That is all a matter of personal opinion, although it's not like Americans really couldn't use these jobs right about now. These countries with a stable manufacturing base (along with a stable manufacturing output) have a couple of things in common, but I'll just focus on one: An increase in real wages.

Germany (Too lazy to make own graphs):

Japan:

Australia:

And this pesky little bugger is the United States. Real Wages hasn't increased past pre-recession levels, but have still grown. So the idea that real wages have remained stagnant again is generally false.

So Americans are more productive, but their increased productivity doesn't warrant the wages Americans desire. If Americans want higher wages, they need to find ways to increase their human capital.

 

[Rshermr]

And on que, the paid con tool appears. Nothing new here. Just the same drivel from the bat shit crazy con web sites boss lives in. No ability for conversation. Boss just posts conservative dogma. Or, better described, drivel.

Ever notice those wealthy folks getting punished?? Hell, if it was as boss said, they would move to some completely laisses faire country, if there were one. And yes, indeed, in boss' world, as long as the wealthy get more so, all is well. Boss is owned. He is not going to have a rational discussion. Spends his time spewing drivel about marxists. Who actually do not exist, except in bosses pin head. And, of course, the bat shit crazy con web sites he frequents.

LMAO... it is flattering to know that you believe I am so fucking good at totally schooling your ass, that someone MUST be paying me! I just wish I knew where to collect my checks! Do you think if I wrote to those Koch Brothers, they'd send me some bank? I could sure as hell use some! Maybe I should start a BLOG site? Seems to be the popular way to influence people these days, and be taken seriously.

You mention that if what I said were true, the wealthy would be moving to laissez faire countries, and this is an excellent opportunity to point out, over $20 trillion American dollars currently reside in foreign banks and investments. This number is growing every year, so... in a very real sense, that is EXACTLY what is happening. Of course, the people themselves aren't moving, but they don't have to. The water is better here, they have all the luxuries of home, and they are doing just fine in this shitty economy for everyone else. Their money is elsewhere, and it will stay elsewhere, as long as Marxist Socialist with an anti-capitalist agenda are in charge.

Yup. Just as you would like it. We pay for their clean air, water, police, defense, roads, and all else. They avoid paying taxes. Good deal.

And no, me poor delusional con tool. You are schooling no one. That does not pass the giggle test. Never had a teacher who felt he had to lie as you do, for instance.

No, boss, you are simply a con clown. You seem to think of yourself as important. A common malady of cons. Because, you see, cons are typically stupid:
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Alterman Study: Conservatives Display Ignorance | Nel's New Day

Now I know you do not like studies. You get your stuff the old fashioned way, from the bat shit crazy con web sites and libertarian economists who are a joke to most. But it is funny that all of the studies come out the same. So, boss, again. It is not your fault. You are a con. So you are stupid.

 

[OnePercenter]

Since 1973 the Big Mac has increased in price 1200%, while minimum wage has only increased 300%. Minimum wage is the base for all wages.

 

[Boss]

Yup. Just as you would like it. We pay for their clean air, water, police, defense, roads, and all else. They avoid paying taxes. Good deal.

Oh, they pay every cent of tax they owe, it's just that most of it is to another government.

If you are paying the government for clean air and water, you're getting hosed, because we have neither. Police and most roads, are paid for with state and local taxes, not federal money. The national defense, we share universally, and it's a constitutionally authorized responsibility of government, but you are constantly screaming to cut this, so you can "help" more people in need, which also isn't happening.

You seem to think of yourself as important.

No, I think I am just average, Tania is important... she fucking rocks!

WoW... a flurry of liberal pinhead noise and more denigration! Keep plugging those blogs, me boy!

 

[Boss]

Since 1973 the Big Mac has increased in price 1200%, while minimum wage has only increased 300%. Minimum wage is the base for all wages.

So if we increase the minimum wage by 50%, the cost of a Big Mac goes up 200%. What's worse is, since most people don't live on Big Macs, the cost of milk, bread, sugar, flour, corn, wheat, beef, etc. ALL increase as well. Then we start to see ketchup and mustard packets costing a nickel or so, where they once were free, and onions and lettuce on your Big Mac are an optional extra. AND... we'll see the McDonalds Corporation open more restaurants in foreign countries with lower wages, because they can make more profits there, as we start seeing them vanish across the US. But hey.... that's all okay, because Michelle Obama says you don't need to be eating Big Macs anyway, and since I am now paying for your health care, I am inclined to agree, you shouldn't be allowed to eat them. I don't want to pay for your coronary bypass, so I am fine with you being denied the pleasure.

Yeah, may as well go ahead and jack the minimum wage up. Why don't we go with something like $20 an hour or so? That sounds like a nice round number, and I think most people would agree, it's a fair amount of money for unskilled labor. When can we expect this to be passed by Nancy and Harry?