The Wages Of Ordinary American Workers Has Increased 9% in Forty Years

[Toddsterpatriot]

And businesses move when the expected profit increase outweighs the cost and inconvenience of moving

So they move because they would make MORE somewhere else.

It's that thinking that's killing us. How many billions in after tax profits is enough to sell out your country and people?
There's the rub. 20% isn't shit in taxes, it's a deal for what they get in return.

No business has any allegiance to a country never has never will
The thinking that is killing us is that businesses should just stay here simply because this is America. The new reality is we have to make businesses want to stay here.

Then buh bye. Don't need ya.
Why do you all defend business so fervently while expressing contempt for workers?
I simply don't understand the thinking.
The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP. On the other hand the workers of America drive the largest part of GDP, currently 70%.
You all give a pass to anything business does even when it hinders overall growth. You all, for some unknown reason, support all of the gains going to a small share of our economy at the expense of the rest then complain about slow growth.
It's truly baffling to me.

The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP

Shit you're clueless.
The government spending part of GDP is government buying goods and services produced by business.
The consumer spending part of GDP is consumers buying goods and services produced by business.
No wonder why you're a liberal, you're too dumb to be anything else.

Shit you're clueless.

That you are amigo. That you are.

I'm happy to give you lessons on economics.
And I'm happy to mock your ignorance.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I understand how business works. My beef is with the model they've chosen.
Everybody pays, that's how it works. That's how it's always worked. Lowering taxes to a non existant level to give a private enterprise more profit is not the answer. What's the benefit to America of doing so? At what point do we consider these as no longer American enterprises? They want the benefits of the availability of capital, infrastructure, markets, security, etc without paying the dues to be in the club.

Lowering taxes to a non existant level to give a private enterprise more profit is not the answer. What's the benefit to America of doing so?

More jobs for American workers, more profits for American shareholders. Durr.

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

View attachment 73763

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

Why don't we raise taxes and add more regulations on business.

That'll increase jobs for sure!!!

No answer? Go figure.

Well, if taxes and regulations cost $10 billion here and $5 billion elsewhere, there will be a tendency to move to the less expensive location.

Now you can bitch and whine when a company moves, or you can make it more attractive to remain here.
I know which of those actions will result in more American jobs.

Unless they made more by selling more to offset the costs. Since they've raped wage earners for decades, they kind of screwed themselves out of that possibility.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's that thinking that's killing us. How many billions in after tax profits is enough to sell out your country and people?
There's the rub. 20% isn't shit in taxes, it's a deal for what they get in return.

No business has any allegiance to a country never has never will
The thinking that is killing us is that businesses should just stay here simply because this is America. The new reality is we have to make businesses want to stay here.

Then buh bye. Don't need ya.
Why do you all defend business so fervently while expressing contempt for workers?
I simply don't understand the thinking.
The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP. On the other hand the workers of America drive the largest part of GDP, currently 70%.
You all give a pass to anything business does even when it hinders overall growth. You all, for some unknown reason, support all of the gains going to a small share of our economy at the expense of the rest then complain about slow growth.
It's truly baffling to me.

The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP

Shit you're clueless.
The government spending part of GDP is government buying goods and services produced by business.
The consumer spending part of GDP is consumers buying goods and services produced by business.
No wonder why you're a liberal, you're too dumb to be anything else.

Shit you're clueless.

That you are amigo. That you are.

I'm happy to give you lessons on economics.
And I'm happy to mock your ignorance.

Too funny. The only lesson you have given is how to show your ass on a public forum.

 

[NightFox]

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

Tax breaks and regulatory relief, unless you want businesses to continue to move overseas where taxes and regulatory burdens are lower. Are you under the impression that you can tax & regulate your way to domestic prosperity? how's that been working out so far?

Bullshit. By your logic then our economy must down size completely to compete directly with the smallest economies of the world.

Where in the hell did you get that from what I posted? You apparently don't understand what portion of the economy is productive and which is not, YOUR proposal is the one that "downsizes" the economy since YOU are the one that wants to put more of it in the hands of the unproductive portion of it (aka government) , YOU are the one that wants to follow the fiscal policies that ship jobs overseas and creates stagnant real wages for American workers and the funny part is we are following the policies that YOU want and we are getting exactly that, less opportunity, lower wages and slower economic growth, congratulations.

Just stupid. Business isn't a mindless enterprise that simply has to follow low costs around the globe. It's unmitigated greed diving that behavior.

LOL, again with the silly assertions, no business isn't a "mindless enterprise" businesses make decisions based on what makes the most sense for their business (just like every rational person on the planet does) not some idiotic idea of patriotism, they're not in business to pay for all the shit everybody else wants which what you seem think they exist for.

 

[BlackSand]

Apparently quite a lot. Of course you find deriving profits in such a way morally ambiguous.

No ... I believe you are the one being ambiguous.
If you have to disguise your ambiguity with implied moral turpitude ... Then you don't value the contributions of others in the same manner they do.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

Tax breaks and regulatory relief, unless you want businesses to continue to move overseas where taxes and regulatory burdens are lower. Are you under the impression that you can tax & regulate your way to domestic prosperity? how's that been working out so far?

Bullshit. By your logic then our economy must down size completely to compete directly with the smallest economies of the world.

Where in the hell did you get that from what I posted? You apparently don't understand what portion of the economy is productive and which is not, YOUR proposal is the one that "downsizes" the economy since YOU are the one that wants to put more of it in the hands of the unproductive portion of it (aka government) , YOU are the one that wants to follow the fiscal policies that ship jobs overseas and creates stagnant real wages for American workers and the funny part is we are following the policies that YOU want and we are getting exactly that, less opportunity, lower wages and slower economic growth, congratulations.

Just stupid. Business isn't a mindless enterprise that simply has to follow low costs around the globe. It's unmitigated greed diving that behavior.

LOL, again with the silly assertions, no business isn't a "mindless enterprise" businesses make decisions based on what makes the most sense for their business (just like every rational person on the planet does) not some idiotic idea of patriotism, they're not in business to pay for all the shit everybody else wants which what you seem think they exist for.

I said nothing about giving more to the govt.
I said 22% was a reasonable rate. It's not?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Apparently quite a lot. Of course you find deriving profits in such a way morally ambiguous.

No ... I believe you are the one being ambiguous.
If you have to disguise your ambiguity with implied moral turpitude ... Then you don't value the contributions of others in the same manner they do.

.

I didn't imply anything. I was quite clear.
Your answer, not so much.

 

[BlackSand]

Apparently quite a lot. Of course you find deriving profits in such a way morally ambiguous.

No ... I believe you are the one being ambiguous.
If you have to disguise your ambiguity with implied moral turpitude ... Then you don't value the contributions of others in the same manner they do.

.

I didn't imply anything. I was quite clear.
Your answer, not so much.

No ... You are quite wrong ... Again.
Which is not a surprise ... Because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

If one party produces a product that benefits another party ... They can certainly make arrangements to trade.
For you to invent rules that favor your disposition ... On the grounds of moral turpitude ... Is ambiguous.

You have offered nothing but your welfare as a means of exchange ... In combination with what you ambiguously choose to select as a fair price.

.

 

[NightFox]

I said nothing about giving more to the govt.

Ummm.. you want to give a hell of a lot more to government than I do, I'm arguing that we need to reduce the tax and regulatory burden to create a more business friendly climate, you're arguing to keep the status quo, how's that status quo working out so far?

I said 22% was a reasonable rate. It's not?

Apparently NOT otherwise businesses wouldn't be moving to greener pastures and that 22% is nonsense since you are completely ignoring all the other (local, state and federal) taxes that businesses pay and all the regulatory burden that they carry.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Apparently quite a lot. Of course you find deriving profits in such a way morally ambiguous.

No ... I believe you are the one being ambiguous.
If you have to disguise your ambiguity with implied moral turpitude ... Then you don't value the contributions of others in the same manner they do.

.

I didn't imply anything. I was quite clear.
Your answer, not so much.

No ... You are quite wrong ... Again.
Which is not a surprise ... Because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

If one party produces a product that benefits another party ... They can certainly make arrangements to trade.
For you to invent rules that favor your disposition ... On the grounds of moral turpitude ... Is ambiguous.

You have offered nothing but your welfare as a means of exchange ... In combination with what you ambiguously choose to select as a fair price.

.

You people have a problem with contextual meanings and reading people's links. The discussion was about Pfizer. I linked an article outlining increases in prices and the fallout the CEO was receiving for his reasons for doing so. My comments are in that context. You jumped in and attacked the comment without context.

 

[BlackSand]

You people have a problem with contextual meanings and reading people's links. The discussion was about Pfizer. I linked an article outlining increases in prices and the fallout the CEO was receiving for his reasons for doing so. My comments are in that context. You jumped in and attacked the comment without context.

I could provide you with a link to Flat Earth Society ... And probably find an article on the benefits of smoking ... So what?

Your argument is still incorrect ... Your reasoning is flawed.
You are the one who provided the context ... And it's a load of crap.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I said nothing about giving more to the govt.

Ummm.. you want to give a hell of a lot more to government than I do, I'm arguing that we need to reduce the tax and regulatory burden to create a more business friendly climate, you're arguing to keep the status quo, how's that status quo working out so far?

I said 22% was a reasonable rate. It's not?

Apparently NOT otherwise businesses wouldn't be moving to greener pastures and that 22% is nonsense since you are completely ignoring all the other (local, state and federal) taxes that businesses pay and all the regulatory burden that they carry.

So what's a reasonable rate,zero? Your argument logically ends there. Should business pay tax on profits at all? If so what's the reasonable amount to you?
What have they been historically? Are they better or worse now?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You people have a problem with contextual meanings and reading people's links. The discussion was about Pfizer. I linked an article outlining increases in prices and the fallout the CEO was receiving for his reasons for doing so. My comments are in that context. You jumped in and attacked the comment without context.

I could provide you with a link to Flat Earth Society ... And probably find an article on the benefits of smoking ... So what?

Your argument is still incorrect ... Your reasoning is flawed.
You are the one who provided the context ... And it's a load of crap.

.

So raising drug prices by huge percentages and laying off employees in an attempt to recover from years of mismanagement is not morally questionable to you? They hold no responsibility to the economy at large?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lowering taxes to a non existant level to give a private enterprise more profit is not the answer. What's the benefit to America of doing so?

More jobs for American workers, more profits for American shareholders. Durr.

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

View attachment 73763

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

Why don't we raise taxes and add more regulations on business.

That'll increase jobs for sure!!!

No answer? Go figure.

Well, if taxes and regulations cost $10 billion here and $5 billion elsewhere, there will be a tendency to move to the less expensive location.

Now you can bitch and whine when a company moves, or you can make it more attractive to remain here.
I know which of those actions will result in more American jobs.

Unless they made more by selling more to offset the costs. Since they've raped wage earners for decades, they kind of screwed themselves out of that possibility.

Unless they made more by selling more to offset the costs.

Or they can move and still sell more.

Complying with federal regulations costs Americans $2.028 trillion in lost economic growth annually, or roughly equivalent to 12 percent of total GDP that could be invested back into our nation’s businesses, according to a new study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). - See more at: Pay Up: Federal Regulations Cost U.S. Economy More Than $2 Trillion Annually | NAM

Look at that, their study shows that the cost of regulations is close to the level of corporate profits shown in your post #331.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No business has any allegiance to a country never has never will
The thinking that is killing us is that businesses should just stay here simply because this is America. The new reality is we have to make businesses want to stay here.

Then buh bye. Don't need ya.
Why do you all defend business so fervently while expressing contempt for workers?
I simply don't understand the thinking.
The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP. On the other hand the workers of America drive the largest part of GDP, currently 70%.
You all give a pass to anything business does even when it hinders overall growth. You all, for some unknown reason, support all of the gains going to a small share of our economy at the expense of the rest then complain about slow growth.
It's truly baffling to me.

The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP

Shit you're clueless.
The government spending part of GDP is government buying goods and services produced by business.
The consumer spending part of GDP is consumers buying goods and services produced by business.
No wonder why you're a liberal, you're too dumb to be anything else.

Shit you're clueless.

That you are amigo. That you are.

I'm happy to give you lessons on economics.
And I'm happy to mock your ignorance.

Too funny. The only lesson you have given is how to show your ass on a public forum.

I know I own you, but you're not really my ass.

 

[BlackSand]

So raising drug prices by huge percentages and laying off employees in an attempt to recover from years of mismanagement is not morally questionable to you? They hold no responsibility to the economy at large?

That's an example of your ambiguous moral turpitude.

It doesn't matter if I think it is morally corrupt.
I don't have the authority to turn them into my slaves and force them to work providing me with products that meet my desired morality or whatever I ambiguously deem to be a fair exchange ... And you don't either.

.

 

[NightFox]

I said nothing about giving more to the govt.

Ummm.. you want to give a hell of a lot more to government than I do, I'm arguing that we need to reduce the tax and regulatory burden to create a more business friendly climate, you're arguing to keep the status quo, how's that status quo working out so far?

I said 22% was a reasonable rate. It's not?

Apparently NOT otherwise businesses wouldn't be moving to greener pastures and that 22% is nonsense since you are completely ignoring all the other (local, state and federal) taxes that businesses pay and all the regulatory burden that they carry.

So what's a reasonable rate,zero?

As far as federal business income taxes go , yep make them zero, IMHO flat consumption based taxation makes more sense, consumers end up paying the taxes anyways (in the form of higher prices along with lower wages for employees and lower returns for shareholders) and with consumption based the taxes aren't hidden and the cost of doing business is far less from an accounting/legal standpoint, not to mention it's cheaper from an enforcement standpoint.

Of course that's still leaves a plethora of other business taxes that need to be reformed along with the enormous regulatory burden they face.

What have they been historically? Are they better or worse now?

The taxation and regulatory burden on U.S. Companies in general is far worse now than it has ever been historically (and it's only getting worse as government debt and the national registry continue to grow unabated) and it's at the worst possible time since the global economy has never been more competitive than it is right now, that's why we're seeing companies move to greener pastures overseas.

I want companies BEGGING to move here to the United States and I want the companies that are here right now to stay here but in the current business climate that's just not going to happen in the aggregate.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

View attachment 73763

OK, so there's no room for jobs and wages as it stands now? A tax break is required?

Why don't we raise taxes and add more regulations on business.

That'll increase jobs for sure!!!

No answer? Go figure.

Well, if taxes and regulations cost $10 billion here and $5 billion elsewhere, there will be a tendency to move to the less expensive location.

Now you can bitch and whine when a company moves, or you can make it more attractive to remain here.
I know which of those actions will result in more American jobs.

Unless they made more by selling more to offset the costs. Since they've raped wage earners for decades, they kind of screwed themselves out of that possibility.

Unless they made more by selling more to offset the costs.

Or they can move and still sell more.

Complying with federal regulations costs Americans $2.028 trillion in lost economic growth annually, or roughly equivalent to 12 percent of total GDP that could be invested back into our nation’s businesses, according to a new study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). - See more at: Pay Up: Federal Regulations Cost U.S. Economy More Than $2 Trillion Annually | NAM

Look at that, their study shows that the cost of regulations is close to the level of corporate profits shown in your post #331.

Look at that, the current level of corporate profits and their growth from my post #331 went right over your head. Why aren't they reinvesting back into business now?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then buh bye. Don't need ya.
Why do you all defend business so fervently while expressing contempt for workers?
I simply don't understand the thinking.
The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP. On the other hand the workers of America drive the largest part of GDP, currently 70%.
You all give a pass to anything business does even when it hinders overall growth. You all, for some unknown reason, support all of the gains going to a small share of our economy at the expense of the rest then complain about slow growth.
It's truly baffling to me.

The reality is that all of the business activity in America is only at any time 10-20% of GDP

Shit you're clueless.
The government spending part of GDP is government buying goods and services produced by business.
The consumer spending part of GDP is consumers buying goods and services produced by business.
No wonder why you're a liberal, you're too dumb to be anything else.

Shit you're clueless.

That you are amigo. That you are.

I'm happy to give you lessons on economics.
And I'm happy to mock your ignorance.

Too funny. The only lesson you have given is how to show your ass on a public forum.

I know I own you, but you're not really my ass.

You own nothing. Your view is simplistic and without merit.
Look, I didn't create economics. I didn't decide how each component of the economy contributes and is measured. I only use what's already there. I use what's taught in universities and learned by everyone who passes through including lawmakers and business leaders. You aren't arguing that at all. You have the view, however you derived it, that business runs the show and that simply isn't true. If it were, it would be measured and reported that way.

 

[BlackSand]

Look at that, the current level of corporate profits and their growth from my post #331 went right over your head. Why aren't they reinvesting back into business now?

Probably because it is their money and they have that choice.

With the current climate of societal affairs ... And the proliferation of individuals who deem themselves the moral arbiters who shall be obeyed ... It is rather easy to determine what an individual can choose to do with what they actually have control over.

If you would like them to invest more in the economy and society as a whole ... I would suggest you stop telling them what they owe you.
Because otherwise ... They will show you what they owe you ... Which is nothing.

.