Trickle-Up Recession: The 1% Getting Real About the Permanent Fix for the Economy

[Silhouette]

I don't know how I can make this simpler.

Make it simpler by starting your own company that pays high wages, gives good benefits, including fully paid for health insurance and most of all, no automation!!

Let us know when you start up, I'll be sure to buy your product.

I have employed sub contractors over the year on several projects. And in all of them I pay better than the going wage. And the reason I do this is because I expect good work and I've found through hard knocks that you will pay more if you hire cheap in the end. Sometimes lots more. Plus I feel sick to my stomach watching how hard some of my people worked on my projects for such shitty wages as they're typically paid. And you know what? I still made a profit. Not obscene, but enough to really pat myself on the back and say "job well done".

If everyone in business had this type of mentality, there wouldn't even be this conversation happening. But not everyone sees the struggles of people in their employ as heart-wrenching. Some love it. Some feel really powerful watching people grovel for peanuts. I suspect Trump is one of these types.

 

[Indeependent]

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).
Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

Greed will always be a factor in life. But would you prefer a company not automate, not increase efficiency and find ways to do more with less and ultimately close their doors, leaving ALL the employees on the street? You seem to have an emotional instead of logical understanding of how a company works, the costs and risks involved, the tough decisions that those at the top have to make every single day. I worked at Circuit City during it's peak time. Things were great, it was a fun place to work. Leadership was making good decisions and they were very profitable. There was a change in leadership and bad decisions were made which ultimately led to a company that once employed 50,000 well paid people shut down and went away. The top cats during the good times deserved all the perks they got.

They're not automating, they're bringing in "highly skilled" Indians to stack shelves.

No, they're bringing in highly educated Indians to write code.

Which is why IBM, Oracle and MS are kicking technological ass?
You've got to be kidding.

Those are the innovators in the IT world. I'm talking about the companies that use their products. Indian programmers have a very strong presence in nearly every IT department in the country, and for good reason. They're well educated, do good work and don't charge as much for their services as American programmers. That's one reason why I transferred to Database Administration.

"Those are the innovators in the IT world"
You missed my point...
IBM, MS and Oracle haven't innovated ANYTHING since the late 90s.
Nobody even knows who IBM or Oracle are except for people in their 50s or older.
And MS keeps offering up even shitter Indian written code with every version of every product they release.

"don't charge as much for their services as American programmers"
That's the key line.

Their products suck and that's why so many software products have disappeared from the market.
I bet you can't name one innovation from any company other than Apple.
Go ahead, I dare you.
Even the H1-Bs at Google are screwing up Android.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know how I can make this simpler.

Make it simpler by starting your own company that pays high wages, gives good benefits, including fully paid for health insurance and most of all, no automation!!

Let us know when you start up, I'll be sure to buy your product.

I have employed sub contractors over the year on several projects. And in all of them I pay better than the going wage. And the reason I do this is because I expect good work and I've found through hard knocks that you will pay more if you hire cheap in the end. Sometimes lots more. Plus I feel sick to my stomach watching how hard some of my people worked on my projects for such shitty wages as they're typically paid. And you know what? I still made a profit. Not obscene, but enough to really pat myself on the back and say "job well done".

If everyone in business had this type of mentality, there wouldn't even be this conversation happening. But not everyone sees the struggles of people in their employ as heart-wrenching. Some love it. Some feel really powerful watching people grovel for peanuts. I suspect Trump is one of these types.

So you hire a sub contractor and pay them more than what they ask for?
Or do you hire the subcontractors that give you the highest bids?

 

[Indeependent]

I don't know how I can make this simpler.

Make it simpler by starting your own company that pays high wages, gives good benefits, including fully paid for health insurance and most of all, no automation!!

Let us know when you start up, I'll be sure to buy your product.

I have employed sub contractors over the year on several projects. And in all of them I pay better than the going wage. And the reason I do this is because I expect good work and I've found through hard knocks that you will pay more if you hire cheap in the end. Sometimes lots more. Plus I feel sick to my stomach watching how hard some of my people worked on my projects for such shitty wages as they're typically paid. And you know what? I still made a profit. Not obscene, but enough to really pat myself on the back and say "job well done".

If everyone in business had this type of mentality, there wouldn't even be this conversation happening. But not everyone sees the struggles of people in their employ as heart-wrenching. Some love it. Some feel really powerful watching people grovel for peanuts. I suspect Trump is one of these types.

So you hire a sub contractor and pay them more than what they ask for?
Or do you hire the subcontractors that give you the highest bids?

You interview people and if they can elucidate what you need and don't stumble all over their words you make them a good offer.

 

[LaDexter]

The reason the gov. is spending more is because more people are unemployed so safety nets are taking their toll.

That is complete BS. Government spending is twice what it was in the 1990s because people in government are stealing like crazy and getting away with it, thanks to two straight uber corrupt administrations, what historians will call

"The Period of American WO"

 

[ColonelAngus]

Hillary should already be paying her fair share. She doesn't have to wait for taxes to go up, there is only a minimum tax, not a maximum trax.

she should lead by example and pay her fair share.

 

[Silhouette]

That is complete BS. Government spending is twice what it was in the 1990s because people in government are stealing like crazy and getting away with it, thanks to two straight uber corrupt administrations, what historians will call

"The Period of American WO"

So only since the 1990s people in government have been skimming off the funds like crazy and getting away with it? My you are naive aren't you? I can assure that there was as much corruption in government in the 1920s as there is today.

The remaining difference between the two eras is that people made stuff in the US of A back in the 1920s. Now everything is outsourced or automated and we can't have the throngs of unemployed showing up on the streetcorners begging for or stealing handouts can we? So the dole has grown to epic proportions to such an extent that we no longer can maintain it without sticking it to the rich to "pay their fair share".

You see how the 1% is not going to escape paying one way or the other? Much better to pay by employing people here, taking them off the dole and taxing everyone instead of the rich at expanding rates, dontcha think?

 

[AntonToo]

The reason the gov. is spending more is because more people are unemployed so safety nets are taking their toll.

That is complete BS. Government spending is twice what it was in the 1990s because people in government are stealing like crazy and getting away with it, thanks to two straight uber corrupt administrations, what historians will call

"The Period of American WO"

Government spending is not twice it was in the 90s, the assertion is simply made up

 

[Andylusion]

The reason the gov. is spending more is because more people are unemployed so safety nets are taking their toll.

That is complete BS. Government spending is twice what it was in the 1990s because people in government are stealing like crazy and getting away with it, thanks to two straight uber corrupt administrations, what historians will call

"The Period of American WO"

Government spending is not twice it was in the 90s, the assertion is simply made up

What? Wasn't 1993 total Federal spending $1.9 Trillion? Today it's $4 Trillion.

 

[Silhouette]

What? Wasn't 1993 total Federal spending $1.9 Trillion? Today it's $4 Trillion.

Well that's what happens when you sell 30% of your workforce's jobs overseas, to illegals or to automation. The dole becomes larger. Debt becomes higher and the economy becomes weaker. It's all directly interconnected.

 

[Andylusion]

What? Wasn't 1993 total Federal spending $1.9 Trillion? Today it's $4 Trillion.

Well that's what happens when you sell 30% of your workforce's jobs overseas, to illegals or to automation. The dole becomes larger. Debt becomes higher and the economy becomes weaker. It's all directly interconnected.

Couple of problems. When you make it more profitable to be overseas.... jobs are going to move over seas, whether you make a policy for it or not.

If you sell lemonade, and you can either sell it in Ohio and make $30,000 a year, or sell it in Kentucky and make $100,000, and it's going to cost you $50,000 to setup your lemonade shop.... where do you make the investment? Of course... unless you are total and complete brainless idiot... you are going to invest in Kentucky.

Same is true on the world stage. You drive up taxes, and health care costs, and crazy unions that drive up costs, and costly regulations to prevent the mythical melt down by CO2..... and then you are shock jobs leave the US?

Why is this always shocking to the left? Look at France.....

Rising number of wealthy French fleeing abroad - France 24

10,000 millionaires left France last year

Free health care... no jobs, stagnate economy... and not to mention a growing terrorism problem.

France is just way down the same track, you want us to roll on.

I don't know what you think is going to change this. Like there is some magic way you can drive up costs, drive up regulations, drive up taxes, drive up union controls, and magically have companies willing to hire more people?

You want more people hired at steady paying jobs in the US? You have to reverse all of those. Sorry, but you can't get there from here.

What's funny is, if positions were reversed, you would inherently understand this.

If you wanted your lawn mowed, and it was $100 a mow to hire a person, and $700 to buy a lawnbot... it wouldn't be 4 months, and you'd buy a bot to replace the person.

Problem is, employers are just regular people like you, except they own businesses and can hire people. But the same concept applies. If between taxes, unions, regulations, and minimum wage laws, the cost of an employee ends up being significantly greater than automation, or outsourcing... at some point, you replace the employees.

You, and those left-wing policies and ideas, have created the very problem you complain about to others.

 

[AntonToo]

What? Wasn't 1993 total Federal spending $1.9 Trillion? Today it's $4 Trillion.

Oh boy..alright here we go:

A dollar in 1993 is not a dollar in 2016. So basic rules of economic discussion are that you at very least adjust for inflation (real$).

$1.9T in 1993 is about $3.16T in 2016 dollars (CPI Inflation Calculator)

This is 2015 spending

Note that half of the spending is SS and healthcare - which happen to be effected by our aging demographics.

To say we can "simply go back to 90s spending" is to not understand this - we aren't spending on same population.


But of course if you want to have really good manners you would also adjust for size of economy (%GDP):

Which again, shows only modest increase.

 

[Andylusion]

What? Wasn't 1993 total Federal spending $1.9 Trillion? Today it's $4 Trillion.

Oh boy..alright here we go:

A dollar in 1993 is not a dollar in 2016. So basic rules of economic discussion are that you at very least adjust for inflation (real$).

$1.9T in 1993 is about $3.16T in 2016 dollars (CPI Inflation Calculator)

This is 2015 spending

Note that half of the spending is SS and healthcare - which happen to be effected by our aging demographics.

To say we can "simply go back to 90s spending" is to not understand this - we aren't spending on same population.


But of course if you want to have really good manners you would also adjust for size of economy (%GDP):

Which again, shows only modest increase.

Why would you assume I was using non-inflation adjusted dollars?

In non-inflation adjusted dollars, the 1993 budget was only $1.4 Trillion.

In fact, in 1999 the total budget was only $1.7 Trillion.

Your $3.6 Trillion number, is taking an inflation adjusted number, and adjusting it again.

Stop being crazy. lol

 

[AntonToo]

What? Wasn't 1993 total Federal spending $1.9 Trillion? Today it's $4 Trillion.

Oh boy..alright here we go:

A dollar in 1993 is not a dollar in 2016. So basic rules of economic discussion are that you at very least adjust for inflation (real$).

$1.9T in 1993 is about $3.16T in 2016 dollars (CPI Inflation Calculator)

This is 2015 spending

Note that half of the spending is SS and healthcare - which happen to be effected by our aging demographics.

To say we can "simply go back to 90s spending" is to not understand this - we aren't spending on same population.


But of course if you want to have really good manners you would also adjust for size of economy (%GDP):

Which again, shows only modest increase.

Why would you assume I was using non-inflation adjusted dollars?

In non-inflation adjusted dollars, the 1993 budget was only $1.4 Trillion.

In fact, in 1999 the total budget was only $1.7 Trillion.

Your $3.6 Trillion number, is taking an inflation adjusted number, and adjusting it again.

Stop being crazy. lol

Ok how much is 1.4T 1993 adjusted for inflation? it is not 1.9T, niether was the last year budget 4T

And you skipped entirely addressing the standard %ofGDP measure and the fact of aging population.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is complete BS. Government spending is twice what it was in the 1990s because people in government are stealing like crazy and getting away with it, thanks to two straight uber corrupt administrations, what historians will call

"The Period of American WO"

So only since the 1990s people in government have been skimming off the funds like crazy and getting away with it? My you are naive aren't you? I can assure that there was as much corruption in government in the 1920s as there is today.

The remaining difference between the two eras is that people made stuff in the US of A back in the 1920s. Now everything is outsourced or automated and we can't have the throngs of unemployed showing up on the streetcorners begging for or stealing handouts can we? So the dole has grown to epic proportions to such an extent that we no longer can maintain it without sticking it to the rich to "pay their fair share".

You see how the 1% is not going to escape paying one way or the other? Much better to pay by employing people here, taking them off the dole and taxing everyone instead of the rich at expanding rates, dontcha think?

FYI that quote was not mine

 

[Silhouette]

My bad. ^^ Sorry.

Same is true on the world stage. You drive up taxes, and health care costs, and crazy unions that drive up costs, and costly regulations to prevent the mythical melt down by CO2..... and then you are shock jobs leave the US?

Why is this always shocking to the left? Look at France.....You, and those left-wing policies and ideas, have created the very problem you complain about to others.

Health care costs? Universal Healthcare as we provide police, fire and military; to protect human lives. We fund it with sales tax on sugared goods, tobacco & booze (the three main killers), and small co pays at the time of each service outside regular checkups to discourage overuse of the system. The rest will be bolstered by the fact that our economy will be stronger by increases in employment when, employers no longer saddles with employee health premiums, can hire more people. Also when more startups happen because people with good ideas are no longer scared to death of risking everything to keep employees around.

Our economy becomes stronger, our citizens no longer worry about bankruptcy when Johnny gets a compound fracture one day riding his bike. And the best part of it is? When families no longer have the equivalent of a second mortgage going out each month to cover healthcare insurance and deductable costs, they're spending that money and spurring jobs and the economy further. It is halting the downswing and producing an upswing. And it would happen literally overnight the moment the UH system is put into action.

Or, we can continue to have our economy collapse all for a handful of rich people in the health insurance/pharma racket; and their lobbiests.

 

[Silhouette]

Note that half of the spending is SS and healthcare - which happen to be effected by our aging demographics....To say we can "simply go back to 90s spending" is to not understand this - we aren't spending on same population.


But of course if you want to have really good manners you would also adjust for size of economy (%GDP):
Which again, shows only modest increase.

And all that would change if Universal Healthcare was funded by sales taxes on sugar crap, tobacco and booze, with nominal co-pays to discourage overuse of the system. For the first 5-10 years, it would be an adjustment. But we're going to have to make hard adjustments either way to save our economy. With employers and prospective entrepreneurs no longer saddled with worry or expense of providing healthcare premiums for employees, they'll hire more; which stimulates the economy. With people not having to pay the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage each month in healthcare premiums and deductible costs, they'll be spending that money in the marketplace; which stimulates even more jobs and the economy. As more and more people start up new businesses with the glee and freedom of fear of going under from healthcare issues, our GDP will rise and our debt will decrease.

But of course this would mean a tax on sugars, tobacco and booze. So ? Would it be worth it?

 

[Indeependent]

"employers are just regular people like you, except they own businesses and can hire people"

Who live WAY over their heads.
The average small business owner on Long Island who makes less than 200K/year lives like he makes 3 million a year.
All of your RW talk is complete bullshit influenced by your Stock gains.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Note that half of the spending is SS and healthcare - which happen to be effected by our aging demographics....To say we can "simply go back to 90s spending" is to not understand this - we aren't spending on same population.


But of course if you want to have really good manners you would also adjust for size of economy (%GDP):
Which again, shows only modest increase.

And all that would change if Universal Healthcare was funded by sales taxes on sugar crap, tobacco and booze, with nominal co-pays to discourage overuse of the system. For the first 5-10 years, it would be an adjustment. But we're going to have to make hard adjustments either way to save our economy. With employers and prospective entrepreneurs no longer saddled with worry or expense of providing healthcare premiums for employees, they'll hire more; which stimulates the economy. With people not having to pay the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage each month in healthcare premiums and deductible costs, they'll be spending that money in the marketplace; which stimulates even more jobs and the economy. As more and more people start up new businesses with the glee and freedom of fear of going under from healthcare issues, our GDP will rise and our debt will decrease.

But of course this would mean a tax on sugars, tobacco and booze. So ? Would it be worth it?

And all that would change if Universal Healthcare was funded by sales taxes on sugar crap, tobacco and booze,

What tax rate would be enough to pay for this?
Show us your numbers.

 

[Indeependent]

Note that half of the spending is SS and healthcare - which happen to be effected by our aging demographics....To say we can "simply go back to 90s spending" is to not understand this - we aren't spending on same population.


But of course if you want to have really good manners you would also adjust for size of economy (%GDP):
Which again, shows only modest increase.

And all that would change if Universal Healthcare was funded by sales taxes on sugar crap, tobacco and booze, with nominal co-pays to discourage overuse of the system. For the first 5-10 years, it would be an adjustment. But we're going to have to make hard adjustments either way to save our economy. With employers and prospective entrepreneurs no longer saddled with worry or expense of providing healthcare premiums for employees, they'll hire more; which stimulates the economy. With people not having to pay the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage each month in healthcare premiums and deductible costs, they'll be spending that money in the marketplace; which stimulates even more jobs and the economy. As more and more people start up new businesses with the glee and freedom of fear of going under from healthcare issues, our GDP will rise and our debt will decrease.

But of course this would mean a tax on sugars, tobacco and booze. So ? Would it be worth it?

And all that would change if Universal Healthcare was funded by sales taxes on sugar crap, tobacco and booze,

What tax rate would be enough to pay for this?
Show us your numbers.

There probably is a way to calculate this if all of the EMRs were merged for this purpose.