Top 8% Own 85%

[Ray From Cleveland]

Eating establishment go out of business all the time they have an historically high failure rate

Shit even in the worst part of the most recent recession people were still eating out and there were cars at the strip clubs and bars every night of the week

So your example like most of the drivel you post is pure bullshit

It isn't just restaurants moron. If you own a gas station does it really matter how rich each customer is or do you need many customers? The rich guys car uses the same amount of gas as the poor guy.

Tell me then what other businesses exist in your fictional town?

And FYI the Rich guy's cars use more gas than your POS honda

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business


Share
Tweet

ECONOMY
Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business
BY ALAN PYKE OCT 15, 2014 12:04 PM

After decades as the dominant economic theory in American politics, trickle-down economics is starting to lose its grip on the debate. For evidence of that slippage, look no further than the business community’s own communications with investors.

Two thirds of the largest retail companies in the country say falling incomes for their customers threaten their business, according to an analysis of corporate filings by economists at the Center for American Progress (CAP). That is double the proportion that cited slack earnings for the masses among their business risks in 2006. And seven out of every eight major American retail companies “cite weak consumer spending as a risk factor to their stock price,” the authors write.

Think Progress?

Really?

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?


The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat pussy... I never expected any response from a brain dead moon-bat troll.....but if anyone else wants to take a shot at my question go for it.

Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD

Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.

Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.

This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.

Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.

That's stupidity. It's dumb.

Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.

India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.

Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.

The system? How? Force you in debt? How does anyone force you to be in debt? Did someone put a gun to your head, and demand you sign up for Discover Card?

What kind of idiocy, is this? The only reason stupid people are in debt, is because they want to buy stuff, they haven't earned the money to pay for.

I just posted an article of a Mexican who came here with no education, who didn't have a work permit, and created a company making drones. He's now a billionaire.

Stop complaining, and start working. Whiny spoiled brat Americanism. Grow up.

Most absurd.

Read the article dipshit. You don't understand jack.

Why do you defend government, the elites, and big business committing fraud to enrich themselves?

I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.

The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.

Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.

I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"

Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth

Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.

It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.

The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.

So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?

Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”

“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).

From 2009:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.

Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

 

[Brain357]

It isn't just restaurants moron. If you own a gas station does it really matter how rich each customer is or do you need many customers? The rich guys car uses the same amount of gas as the poor guy.

Tell me then what other businesses exist in your fictional town?

And FYI the Rich guy's cars use more gas than your POS honda

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business


Share
Tweet

ECONOMY
Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business
BY ALAN PYKE OCT 15, 2014 12:04 PM

After decades as the dominant economic theory in American politics, trickle-down economics is starting to lose its grip on the debate. For evidence of that slippage, look no further than the business community’s own communications with investors.

Two thirds of the largest retail companies in the country say falling incomes for their customers threaten their business, according to an analysis of corporate filings by economists at the Center for American Progress (CAP). That is double the proportion that cited slack earnings for the masses among their business risks in 2006. And seven out of every eight major American retail companies “cite weak consumer spending as a risk factor to their stock price,” the authors write.

Think Progress?

Really?

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

 

[Brain357]

Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD

Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.

Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.

This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.

Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.

That's stupidity. It's dumb.

Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.

India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.

Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.

Most absurd.

Read the article dipshit. You don't understand jack.

Why do you defend government, the elites, and big business committing fraud to enrich themselves?

I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.

The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.

Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.

I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"

Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth

Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.

It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.

The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.

So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?

Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”

“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).

From 2009:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.

Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

How is that based on failed philosophy? If you don't have enough customers you go out of business. How is that wrong?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

Let's say you live in Arizona and have a rock front and back yard. Why would you hire a lawn care company? Or your backyard is barely enough for your grill, patio table and chairs, why would you hire a pool service when you don't have a pool?

So I ask: why would you hire employees you don't need simply to create jobs? If you have no work for such employees, what are you going to do with them?

You people on the left really believe that job creation is some sort of social obligation of the wealthy. Let me tell you, there are plenty of wealthy people that are not in industry. They make their money in real estate, the stock market, the commodities market, or simply as an advisor over the phone. Hell, I'm a landlord. If I ever got to the point I could support myself just living off my renters, who am I going to hire full time and for what???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.

Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.

This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.

Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.

That's stupidity. It's dumb.

Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.

India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.

Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.

Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.

I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"

Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth

Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.

It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.

The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.

So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?

Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”

“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).

From 2009:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.

Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

How is that based on failed philosophy? If you don't have enough customers you go out of business. How is that wrong?

It's a failed philosophy because it doesn't matter how much money anybody else has. What they have has nothing to do with what you do or don't have.

If I go to work tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise, and he tells me that he'd love to give me one, but he can't because the rich people have all the money, then you might have a point. Or if I go to the bank for a car loan, and they tell me they can't spare the cash because the rich people have all the money, again, then you'd have a point.

But these things never happened to you or anybody else in this country. It doesn't matter how much money rich people have.

 

[Brain357]

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

Let's say you live in Arizona and have a rock front and back yard. Why would you hire a lawn care company? Or your backyard is barely enough for your grill, patio table and chairs, why would you hire a pool service when you don't have a pool?

So I ask: why would you hire employees you don't need simply to create jobs? If you have no work for such employees, what are you going to do with them?

You people on the left really believe that job creation is some sort of social obligation of the wealthy. Let me tell you, there are plenty of wealthy people that are not in industry. They make their money in real estate, the stock market, the commodities market, or simply as an advisor over the phone. Hell, I'm a landlord. If I ever got to the point I could support myself just living off my renters, who am I going to hire full time and for what???

You on the right are just plain silly. You applaud the rich making more while everyone else has stagnant wages and then can't understand why those with all the money pay most of the taxes. You can't collect taxes from people who don't have money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tell me then what other businesses exist in your fictional town?

And FYI the Rich guy's cars use more gas than your POS honda

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business


Share
Tweet

ECONOMY
Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business
BY ALAN PYKE OCT 15, 2014 12:04 PM

After decades as the dominant economic theory in American politics, trickle-down economics is starting to lose its grip on the debate. For evidence of that slippage, look no further than the business community’s own communications with investors.

Two thirds of the largest retail companies in the country say falling incomes for their customers threaten their business, according to an analysis of corporate filings by economists at the Center for American Progress (CAP). That is double the proportion that cited slack earnings for the masses among their business risks in 2006. And seven out of every eight major American retail companies “cite weak consumer spending as a risk factor to their stock price,” the authors write.

Think Progress?

Really?

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

No, why should they?

Let me ask you: do you overpay your mechanic to fix your car? Do you overpay your plumber to fix the sewer line in your basement? Why would anybody pay more money for services than they need to?

 

[Brain357]

Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”

“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).

From 2009:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.

Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

How is that based on failed philosophy? If you don't have enough customers you go out of business. How is that wrong?

It's a failed philosophy because it doesn't matter how much money anybody else has. What they have has nothing to do with what you do or don't have.

If I go to work tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise, and he tells me that he'd love to give me one, but he can't because the rich people have all the money, then you might have a point. Or if I go to the bank for a car loan, and they tell me they can't spare the cash because the rich people have all the money, again, then you'd have a point.

But these things never happened to you or anybody else in this country. It doesn't matter how much money rich people have.

huh? How does that change that if you don't have enough customers you go out of business?

 

[Brain357]

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business


Share
Tweet

ECONOMY
Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business
BY ALAN PYKE OCT 15, 2014 12:04 PM

After decades as the dominant economic theory in American politics, trickle-down economics is starting to lose its grip on the debate. For evidence of that slippage, look no further than the business community’s own communications with investors.

Two thirds of the largest retail companies in the country say falling incomes for their customers threaten their business, according to an analysis of corporate filings by economists at the Center for American Progress (CAP). That is double the proportion that cited slack earnings for the masses among their business risks in 2006. And seven out of every eight major American retail companies “cite weak consumer spending as a risk factor to their stock price,” the authors write.

Think Progress?

Really?

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

No, why should they?

Let me ask you: do you overpay your mechanic to fix your car? Do you overpay your plumber to fix the sewer line in your basement? Why would anybody pay more money for services than they need to?

Have you seen the debt? They need to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

Let's say you live in Arizona and have a rock front and back yard. Why would you hire a lawn care company? Or your backyard is barely enough for your grill, patio table and chairs, why would you hire a pool service when you don't have a pool?

So I ask: why would you hire employees you don't need simply to create jobs? If you have no work for such employees, what are you going to do with them?

You people on the left really believe that job creation is some sort of social obligation of the wealthy. Let me tell you, there are plenty of wealthy people that are not in industry. They make their money in real estate, the stock market, the commodities market, or simply as an advisor over the phone. Hell, I'm a landlord. If I ever got to the point I could support myself just living off my renters, who am I going to hire full time and for what???

You on the right are just plain silly. You applaud the rich making more while everyone else has stagnant wages and then can't understand why those with all the money pay most of the taxes. You can't collect taxes from people who don't have money.

Stagnant wages are the problem of the individual just like making millions is the concern of the individual. One has nothing to do with the other.

So I make millions of dollars a year and you haven't had a raise in three years. How did that become my problem?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Think Progress?

Really?

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

No, why should they?

Let me ask you: do you overpay your mechanic to fix your car? Do you overpay your plumber to fix the sewer line in your basement? Why would anybody pay more money for services than they need to?

Have you seen the debt? They need to.

Well then, follow your own advice. Next time you need your house painted and get three bids, make sure you hire the most expensive company. Or if you go out and get house insurance. Make sure you select the insurance company that has the highest premium.

Lead by example if you really think that employers should pay more money to employees than they are worth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From 2009:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.

Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

How is that based on failed philosophy? If you don't have enough customers you go out of business. How is that wrong?

It's a failed philosophy because it doesn't matter how much money anybody else has. What they have has nothing to do with what you do or don't have.

If I go to work tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise, and he tells me that he'd love to give me one, but he can't because the rich people have all the money, then you might have a point. Or if I go to the bank for a car loan, and they tell me they can't spare the cash because the rich people have all the money, again, then you'd have a point.

But these things never happened to you or anybody else in this country. It doesn't matter how much money rich people have.

huh? How does that change that if you don't have enough customers you go out of business?

What does that have to do with it? If I only have one rich customer that makes ten million a year, I go out of business because everybody else doesn't have the money. If I only have one rich customer that makes a half-million a year, I still go out of business because everybody else doesn't have the money.

How does my rich customer making 9.5 million less a year help me? The other people will still be too poor to patronize my restaurant.

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

Let's say you live in Arizona and have a rock front and back yard. Why would you hire a lawn care company? Or your backyard is barely enough for your grill, patio table and chairs, why would you hire a pool service when you don't have a pool?

So I ask: why would you hire employees you don't need simply to create jobs? If you have no work for such employees, what are you going to do with them?

You people on the left really believe that job creation is some sort of social obligation of the wealthy. Let me tell you, there are plenty of wealthy people that are not in industry. They make their money in real estate, the stock market, the commodities market, or simply as an advisor over the phone. Hell, I'm a landlord. If I ever got to the point I could support myself just living off my renters, who am I going to hire full time and for what???

You on the right are just plain silly. You applaud the rich making more while everyone else has stagnant wages and then can't understand why those with all the money pay most of the taxes. You can't collect taxes from people who don't have money.

Stagnant wages are the problem of the individual just like making millions is the concern of the individual. One has nothing to do with the other.

So I make millions of dollars a year and you haven't had a raise in three years. How did that become my problem?

When they slow our whole economy it is a problem for all of us.

 

[Brain357]

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

No, why should they?

Let me ask you: do you overpay your mechanic to fix your car? Do you overpay your plumber to fix the sewer line in your basement? Why would anybody pay more money for services than they need to?

Have you seen the debt? They need to.

Well then, follow your own advice. Next time you need your house painted and get three bids, make sure you hire the most expensive company. Or if you go out and get house insurance. Make sure you select the insurance company that has the highest premium.

Lead by example if you really think that employers should pay more money to employees than they are worth.

I think they should pay what they are worth, not collude to pay them less as in all the examples I provided.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

Let's say you live in Arizona and have a rock front and back yard. Why would you hire a lawn care company? Or your backyard is barely enough for your grill, patio table and chairs, why would you hire a pool service when you don't have a pool?

So I ask: why would you hire employees you don't need simply to create jobs? If you have no work for such employees, what are you going to do with them?

You people on the left really believe that job creation is some sort of social obligation of the wealthy. Let me tell you, there are plenty of wealthy people that are not in industry. They make their money in real estate, the stock market, the commodities market, or simply as an advisor over the phone. Hell, I'm a landlord. If I ever got to the point I could support myself just living off my renters, who am I going to hire full time and for what???

You on the right are just plain silly. You applaud the rich making more while everyone else has stagnant wages and then can't understand why those with all the money pay most of the taxes. You can't collect taxes from people who don't have money.

Stagnant wages are the problem of the individual just like making millions is the concern of the individual. One has nothing to do with the other.

So I make millions of dollars a year and you haven't had a raise in three years. How did that become my problem?

When they slow our whole economy it is a problem for all of us.

They're not slowing down anything. You need to get away from those liberal rags like the NYT and understand that it's all a bunch of bull from other people who are also jealous of the wealthy.

 

[Brain357]

Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

How is that based on failed philosophy? If you don't have enough customers you go out of business. How is that wrong?

It's a failed philosophy because it doesn't matter how much money anybody else has. What they have has nothing to do with what you do or don't have.

If I go to work tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise, and he tells me that he'd love to give me one, but he can't because the rich people have all the money, then you might have a point. Or if I go to the bank for a car loan, and they tell me they can't spare the cash because the rich people have all the money, again, then you'd have a point.

But these things never happened to you or anybody else in this country. It doesn't matter how much money rich people have.

huh? How does that change that if you don't have enough customers you go out of business?

What does that have to do with it? If I only have one rich customer that makes ten million a year, I go out of business because everybody else doesn't have the money. If I only have one rich customer that makes a half-million a year, I still go out of business because everybody else doesn't have the money.

How does my rich customer making 9.5 million less a year help me? The other people will still be too poor to patronize my restaurant.

Yes you need lots of customers with good paying jobs. That is my point. All the money is going to the rich while wages are stagnant for the rest. That isn't what happens in good capitalism. We have crony capitalism that needs fixing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

No, why should they?

Let me ask you: do you overpay your mechanic to fix your car? Do you overpay your plumber to fix the sewer line in your basement? Why would anybody pay more money for services than they need to?

Have you seen the debt? They need to.

Well then, follow your own advice. Next time you need your house painted and get three bids, make sure you hire the most expensive company. Or if you go out and get house insurance. Make sure you select the insurance company that has the highest premium.

Lead by example if you really think that employers should pay more money to employees than they are worth.

I think they should pay what they are worth, not collude to pay them less as in all the examples I provided.

They don't collude anything.

If I own a business, why would I need to collude with anybody to pay lower wages to my workers? If I want to pay them X amount of dollars, that's all I'm going to pay them.

 

[Brain357]

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

Let's say you live in Arizona and have a rock front and back yard. Why would you hire a lawn care company? Or your backyard is barely enough for your grill, patio table and chairs, why would you hire a pool service when you don't have a pool?

So I ask: why would you hire employees you don't need simply to create jobs? If you have no work for such employees, what are you going to do with them?

You people on the left really believe that job creation is some sort of social obligation of the wealthy. Let me tell you, there are plenty of wealthy people that are not in industry. They make their money in real estate, the stock market, the commodities market, or simply as an advisor over the phone. Hell, I'm a landlord. If I ever got to the point I could support myself just living off my renters, who am I going to hire full time and for what???

You on the right are just plain silly. You applaud the rich making more while everyone else has stagnant wages and then can't understand why those with all the money pay most of the taxes. You can't collect taxes from people who don't have money.

Stagnant wages are the problem of the individual just like making millions is the concern of the individual. One has nothing to do with the other.

So I make millions of dollars a year and you haven't had a raise in three years. How did that become my problem?

When they slow our whole economy it is a problem for all of us.

They're not slowing down anything. You need to get away from those liberal rags like the NYT and understand that it's all a bunch of bull from other people who are also jealous of the wealthy.

I have posted studies from many different sources. I have also laid it out for the very dumb. I should be clear it is a problem. What do you think is the problem and what would you do?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

How is that based on failed philosophy? If you don't have enough customers you go out of business. How is that wrong?

It's a failed philosophy because it doesn't matter how much money anybody else has. What they have has nothing to do with what you do or don't have.

If I go to work tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise, and he tells me that he'd love to give me one, but he can't because the rich people have all the money, then you might have a point. Or if I go to the bank for a car loan, and they tell me they can't spare the cash because the rich people have all the money, again, then you'd have a point.

But these things never happened to you or anybody else in this country. It doesn't matter how much money rich people have.

huh? How does that change that if you don't have enough customers you go out of business?

What does that have to do with it? If I only have one rich customer that makes ten million a year, I go out of business because everybody else doesn't have the money. If I only have one rich customer that makes a half-million a year, I still go out of business because everybody else doesn't have the money.

How does my rich customer making 9.5 million less a year help me? The other people will still be too poor to patronize my restaurant.

Yes you need lots of customers with good paying jobs. That is my point. All the money is going to the rich while wages are stagnant for the rest. That isn't what happens in good capitalism. We have crony capitalism that needs fixing.

Again, what rich people make has nothing to do with what you make. You want to make more money, work more hours. You want to make more money, learn a skill or get into a trade. You want to make more money, get rid of any item or service that you don't need and use that money for investments instead.