Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

This is idiotic.

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.
"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."


That is absolutely retarded.

Market distribution of income, is in fact a given, because it's part of the market.

I don't give my money to the beggar at the street corner, because that beggar doesn't provide anything of value. Exxon does. Microsoft does. Walmart does.

This idea that you can just change the system, so that billionaires are no longer billionaires, because "the market is flexible", is retarded.

Of course it's a given. The whole reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they provide something of value to the most people. The whole reason the poor are generally poor, is because they don't create much or anything of value.

This is exactly why, you can effectively redistribute wealth to poor people, and the vast vast majority end up poor again.

You take lottery winners, that end up with millions, and in 10 years, they are poor again.

There is no way to restructure the market, so that people can make bad choices, and produce little of value, and end up being wealthy.
Equally, there is only one way to restructure the market so that rich people don't end up rich... and that is to drive them out of the market, so they go and end up rich elsewhere.

As I said to last time, there were rich people in Cuba, before Castro. Restructuring the market, didn't make the poor people rich. It just made the rich people leave, and go be rich elsewhere in the world, while the people of Cuba ended up in object poverty for life.

If poor people produce so little, and it's of such low value, how can a company like McDonald's be one of the most profitable companies in the USA? How can they afford to pay the CEO over $21 million dollars per year in salary, since their entire front line work force is composed of minimum wage burger flippers and counter kids.

How is a company like Walmart, one of the most profitable companies in the USA, and paying the highest dividends in their history, when their workers are receiving $9 billion a year in food stamps, MedicAid, earned income credits and other social assistance, and the Walmart family the wealthiest people in the country, if their workers create so little value.

Walmart could afford to pay all of their workers $100 a week more, and still be a highly profitable company. Their profits would be reduced by 1/3, so they would still be very profitable, but they wouldn't be one of the MOST profitable companies. If they were to pay their workers $100 a week more, US taxpayers wouldn't be giving Walmart workers $9 billion in social assistance.

You keep railing against low wage workers and "rewarding them" for their low skills, but even if everyone in the USA were to go to college and acquire better skills, you still need people to deliver pizzas, pick up the trash, clean toilets in office buildings, and work in the fast food industry. What you are saying is that these people should not be paid a living wage, and that American taxpayers should have to subsidize these people.

Wages as a percentage of costs, is now at the same level as it was in the Guilded Age of the Robber Barons. Worker anger at this inequity, as well as worker safety issues, gave rise to the union movement.

Such rationalization ignores the very basic fact that government assistance is expensive. To give someone a $100 food stamp supplement, the government has to process an application, look at the applicant's income and facts presented, collect taxes, pay them out to the state, where they are deposited to the recipient's electronic debit card. Government worker wages are paid at every stage of this process, and are ongoing. If you eliminate the government and have employers pay their workers more, the workers have more control over what they do with their own money, and you eliminate all of the government workers and expenses of running the food stamp programs.

The low wage workers become tax payers, taxes paid to social programs are reduced, the number of government workers employed processing applications and payments are reduced, and government gets smaller and cheaper. Better yet, since the worker wages are tax deductible, every $1 of additional wages corporations pay only costs that corporation $0.78 because it reduces the corporation's tax burden, and 22% of their profits go to taxes.

Yet fools like you continue to believe that raising the minimum wage rewards lazy people with no skills and harms people like you. There is no cure for stupid.
 
Wages as a percentage of costs, is now at the same level as it was in the Guilded Age of the Robber Barons. Worker anger at this inequity, as well as worker safety issues, gave rise to the union movement.
And people like Jimmy Hoffa took advantage of it- although, from reading the book, The Irishman, he (Hoffa) didn't live extravagantly.
There will always be an inequity between the top and the bottom otherwise neither a top or bottom would exist and Nature says it will.
Walmart (your example) pays what the local market demands. As does McDonalds and other low wage employers.
A "living wage" depends on "local markets" so paying an employee 100 bucks a week more in NYC would make someone in, Rabbit Run Australia live a lot better than the person in NYC = inequality.
 
Wages as a percentage of costs, is now at the same level as it was in the Guilded Age of the Robber Barons. Worker anger at this inequity, as well as worker safety issues, gave rise to the union movement.
And people like Jimmy Hoffa took advantage of it- although, from reading the book, The Irishman, he (Hoffa) didn't live extravagantly.
There will always be an inequity between the top and the bottom otherwise neither a top or bottom would exist and Nature says it will.
Walmart (your example) pays what the local market demands. As does McDonalds and other low wage employers.
A "living wage" depends on "local markets" so paying an employee 100 bucks a week more in NYC would make someone in, Rabbit Run Australia live a lot better than the person in NYC = inequality.

You've very WRONG about Walmart. Walmart manipulated what the market would pay. The company is responsible for pushing the "market" wage lower as other big box stores had to adopt their policies to be able to compete on price.

5 Hard Facts About Walmart's Touted New $11 Entry Wage
 
explain this>>>
All men are created equal doesn't mean equal outcome. There are so many factors that are being played in a market economy that focusing on what some don't have vs what a few do have is not a good gauge.
That said, tax laws and structures are meant to limit/restrict participation by all but a few. It seems that when one becomes wealthy, by whatever means, one automatically becomes despised/envied and used as tool by politicians (law/tax structure writers) to pit the less fortunate against the more fortunate- so, are we to blame those who took advantage of the imperialist/elites in DC's fucking ignorance or try to beat them at their own game, which is what the super rich do-
Yes, I call DC law/tax structure writers fucking ignorant- citizens as well. ALL rules/laws are made to be broken. Some people are paid to do just that by finding what the rule/law doesn't say and doing it- they're called accountants and lawyers. Some people come by it naturally, they're called innovative (and enemies), and some emulate the former, they are called learners and doers.
Politicians (law/tax structure writers) are sociopathic fucking idiots that are easily bought and the super wealthy recognize that flaw in their character and take advantage of it. Let's not pretend any here who envy their status (and wealth) wouldn't do the same damn thing.
NO form of gov't or economy will prevent weak immoral sociopaths from seeking to *better* their plight in life- however, capitalism "provides" an opportunity- it is up to the Individual to find it and use it to their benefit. Not everyone is cut out to be at the top, and if everyone was at the top, well, inverted triangles can't remain standing-

Want to "blame" something/somebody for all the Billionaires? Try this on for size.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for the growth of gov't, the loss of liberty, the rise in inequality, and the boom and bust cycles. All those who support peace and prosperity should join the effort to *audit and end the fed*- Ron Paul

Now, there wouldn't be Billionaires or even many millionaires if the *money* wasn't there. But, then there's be 100aries and 1000aires- but, without the money to be taxed there would be a lot less tax and a lot less graft and corruption.
Taking from one to give to another is a Robin Hood fantasy played out by sociopaths- still, taking what isn't earned is theft.


I'll agree w/ a few points that parrot your own here Gdjjr.

It isn't how rich some are here, it's that they've rigged the system to be so

This is WHY wealth inequity exists , and has been an exponential pandemic raft with it's concentration among the very very few, w/out noteable quintile mobility

How bad is it? Well, if the rich can buy elections, by proxy they,ve bought Congress as well as our fiscal, foreign,domestic,trade, climate, policies

Ron Paul was spot on, right on back to the Jekyll island crews debute.....

It has nothing to do with envy or socialism

It has everything to do with a level playing field

~S~
 
You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?
Yeah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.
eah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.
Imagining the Internet

"As with many innovations, the idea for the telephone came along far sooner than it was brought to reality.

"While Italian innovator Antonio Meucci (pictured at left) is credited with inventing the first basic phone in 1849, and Frenchman Charles Bourseul devised a phone in 1854, Alexander Graham Bell won the first U.S. patent for the device in 1876.

"Bell began his research in 1874 and had financial backers who gave him the best business plan for bringing it to market."

Government created the market and guaranteed Bell's patent.

Point to the part in the article where it says that "government created the market and guaranteed Bell's patent".
 
Billionaires Steyer, Epstein, and Romney.....

made most of their money in September of 2001 investing and using options on

DEFENSE STOCKS
GOLD
OIL
THE LONG BOND


Mikey Bloomberg is also in that club, but Mikey also had some real businesses too....
 
Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?
He wants the government to steal them, just like he wants it to steal everything else.
 
Market distribution of income, is in fact a given, because it's part of the market.

Due to lobbyists legislation...

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

Because wealth controls governance here....

China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US .

top 10% is a statistical facade , try the top 1%, or better yet, top point 1% , and get back to us on wealth inequity....

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You're asking if a meritocracy can exist in a 'casino capitalist' society

Rather grand Q Gator....

How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire?

A lot, his story is iconic....

~S~
One thing is certain about billionaires, they are psychopaths. They could alleviate much suffering, but they don’t.

That moron Bezos is using his massive wealth not to help the poor or sick, but to build a space station on Mars because he thinks our time is limited on Earth. What a fucking jack ass.
One thing is certain about billionaires, they are psychopaths. They could alleviate much suffering, but they don’t.

That moron Bezos is using his massive wealth not to help the poor or sick
Jeff Bezos’ Whole Foods slashes medical benefits for nearly 2,000 part-time workers

"Amazon-owned grocery chain Whole Foods Market announced last month that it is eliminating medical benefits for nearly 2,000 part-time workers employed at its stores across the United States...."

"The healthcare cuts for his employees stands in sharp contrast with the vast wealth of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos who sits atop a personal fortune of $115 billion.

"Analysis provided by consumer tracking group Decision Data found that Bezos makes enough money in 2 to 6 hours to more than cover the cost of an entire year of benefits for all of the workers facing cuts."

It's interesting how leftists always think "they know better" how to spend someone else money.

They're part time workers, if they want full benefits, they should work full time.

If they don't like it, they can quit and work elsewhere.

I keep hearing about "open enrollment" for BarryCare. They can always sign up for it.
 
Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?


I worked for a tech/computer company that made us sign a piece of paper that gave THEM the complete rights to ANYTHING I/WE invented or made or created.

don't remember if that included in my/our OFF time at home, though.
 
explain this>>>
All men are created equal doesn't mean equal outcome. There are so many factors that are being played in a market economy that focusing on what some don't have vs what a few do have is not a good gauge.
That said, tax laws and structures are meant to limit/restrict participation by all but a few. It seems that when one becomes wealthy, by whatever means, one automatically becomes despised/envied and used as tool by politicians (law/tax structure writers) to pit the less fortunate against the more fortunate- so, are we to blame those who took advantage of the imperialist/elites in DC's fucking ignorance or try to beat them at their own game, which is what the super rich do-
Yes, I call DC law/tax structure writers fucking ignorant- citizens as well. ALL rules/laws are made to be broken. Some people are paid to do just that by finding what the rule/law doesn't say and doing it- they're called accountants and lawyers. Some people come by it naturally, they're called innovative (and enemies), and some emulate the former, they are called learners and doers.
Politicians (law/tax structure writers) are sociopathic fucking idiots that are easily bought and the super wealthy recognize that flaw in their character and take advantage of it. Let's not pretend any here who envy their status (and wealth) wouldn't do the same damn thing.
NO form of gov't or economy will prevent weak immoral sociopaths from seeking to *better* their plight in life- however, capitalism "provides" an opportunity- it is up to the Individual to find it and use it to their benefit. Not everyone is cut out to be at the top, and if everyone was at the top, well, inverted triangles can't remain standing-

Want to "blame" something/somebody for all the Billionaires? Try this on for size.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for the growth of gov't, the loss of liberty, the rise in inequality, and the boom and bust cycles. All those who support peace and prosperity should join the effort to *audit and end the fed*- Ron Paul

Now, there wouldn't be Billionaires or even many millionaires if the *money* wasn't there. But, then there's be 100aries and 1000aires- but, without the money to be taxed there would be a lot less tax and a lot less graft and corruption.
Taking from one to give to another is a Robin Hood fantasy played out by sociopaths- still, taking what isn't earned is theft.


I'll agree w/ a few points that parrot your own here Gdjjr.

It isn't how rich some are here, it's that they've rigged the system to be so

This is WHY wealth inequity exists , and has been an exponential pandemic raft with it's concentration among the very very few, w/out noteable quintile mobility

How bad is it? Well, if the rich can buy elections, by proxy they,ve bought Congress as well as our fiscal, foreign,domestic,trade, climate, policies

Ron Paul was spot on, right on back to the Jekyll island crews debute.....

It has nothing to do with envy or socialism

It has everything to do with a level playing field

~S~
Excellent post. Thank you.

I find it amusing that many Americans will claim one is envious, when one criticizes the ridiculous skewed system we live under. It’s as if they are trained monkeys.
 
Wages as a percentage of costs, is now at the same level as it was in the Guilded Age of the Robber Barons. Worker anger at this inequity, as well as worker safety issues, gave rise to the union movement.
And people like Jimmy Hoffa took advantage of it- although, from reading the book, The Irishman, he (Hoffa) didn't live extravagantly.
There will always be an inequity between the top and the bottom otherwise neither a top or bottom would exist and Nature says it will.
Walmart (your example) pays what the local market demands. As does McDonalds and other low wage employers.
A "living wage" depends on "local markets" so paying an employee 100 bucks a week more in NYC would make someone in, Rabbit Run Australia live a lot better than the person in NYC = inequality.

You've very WRONG about Walmart. Walmart manipulated what the market would pay. The company is responsible for pushing the "market" wage lower as other big box stores had to adopt their policies to be able to compete on price.

5 Hard Facts About Walmart's Touted New $11 Entry Wage


Wal
Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?
He wants the government to steal them, just like he wants it to steal everything else.


No, he wants Gub'Mit to do their job protecting patent rights

THAT is what's called a level playing field, THAT allows everyone an equal shot at the 'brass ring' & THAT is what made America great

~S~
 
Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?
He wants the government to steal them, just like he wants it to steal everything else.
 
Wages as a percentage of costs, is now at the same level as it was in the Guilded Age of the Robber Barons. Worker anger at this inequity, as well as worker safety issues, gave rise to the union movement.
And people like Jimmy Hoffa took advantage of it- although, from reading the book, The Irishman, he (Hoffa) didn't live extravagantly.
There will always be an inequity between the top and the bottom otherwise neither a top or bottom would exist and Nature says it will.
Walmart (your example) pays what the local market demands. As does McDonalds and other low wage employers.
A "living wage" depends on "local markets" so paying an employee 100 bucks a week more in NYC would make someone in, Rabbit Run Australia live a lot better than the person in NYC = inequality.

You've very WRONG about Walmart. Walmart manipulated what the market would pay. The company is responsible for pushing the "market" wage lower as other big box stores had to adopt their policies to be able to compete on price.

5 Hard Facts About Walmart's Touted New $11 Entry Wage


Wal
Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.
I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?
He wants the government to steal them, just like he wants it to steal everything else.


No, he wants Gub'Mit to do their job protecting patent rights

THAT is what's called a level playing field, THAT allows everyone an equal shot at the 'brass ring' & THAT is what made America great

~S~
Not GeorgePhillip. He whines that patents are a form of theft.
 
Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Its none of your business how much someone else earns, get a job moocher earn your own damn money.
ts none of your business how much someone else earns, get a job moocher earn your own damn money.
d078fd7e2e740346fb443eebb5727310.jpg

Trump’s G-7 scam further illustrates he’s a faux-rich moocher — and not the billionaire he claims to be

I am not interested in tax return of billionaires who entered the public service.

Rather, I am interested in tax returns of those who became millionaires after entering public service.
 
Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

This is idiotic.

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.
"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."


That is absolutely retarded.

Market distribution of income, is in fact a given, because it's part of the market.

I don't give my money to the beggar at the street corner, because that beggar doesn't provide anything of value. Exxon does. Microsoft does. Walmart does.

This idea that you can just change the system, so that billionaires are no longer billionaires, because "the market is flexible", is retarded.

Of course it's a given. The whole reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they provide something of value to the most people. The whole reason the poor are generally poor, is because they don't create much or anything of value.

This is exactly why, you can effectively redistribute wealth to poor people, and the vast vast majority end up poor again.

You take lottery winners, that end up with millions, and in 10 years, they are poor again.

There is no way to restructure the market, so that people can make bad choices, and produce little of value, and end up being wealthy.
Equally, there is only one way to restructure the market so that rich people don't end up rich... and that is to drive them out of the market, so they go and end up rich elsewhere.

As I said to last time, there were rich people in Cuba, before Castro. Restructuring the market, didn't make the poor people rich. It just made the rich people leave, and go be rich elsewhere in the world, while the people of Cuba ended up in object poverty for life.

If poor people produce so little, and it's of such low value, how can a company like McDonald's be one of the most profitable companies in the USA? How can they afford to pay the CEO over $21 million dollars per year in salary, since their entire front line work force is composed of minimum wage burger flippers and counter kids.

How is a company like Walmart, one of the most profitable companies in the USA, and paying the highest dividends in their history, when their workers are receiving $9 billion a year in food stamps, MedicAid, earned income credits and other social assistance, and the Walmart family the wealthiest people in the country, if their workers create so little value.

Walmart could afford to pay all of their workers $100 a week more, and still be a highly profitable company. Their profits would be reduced by 1/3, so they would still be very profitable, but they wouldn't be one of the MOST profitable companies. If they were to pay their workers $100 a week more, US taxpayers wouldn't be giving Walmart workers $9 billion in social assistance.

You keep railing against low wage workers and "rewarding them" for their low skills, but even if everyone in the USA were to go to college and acquire better skills, you still need people to deliver pizzas, pick up the trash, clean toilets in office buildings, and work in the fast food industry. What you are saying is that these people should not be paid a living wage, and that American taxpayers should have to subsidize these people.

Wages as a percentage of costs, is now at the same level as it was in the Guilded Age of the Robber Barons. Worker anger at this inequity, as well as worker safety issues, gave rise to the union movement.

Such rationalization ignores the very basic fact that government assistance is expensive. To give someone a $100 food stamp supplement, the government has to process an application, look at the applicant's income and facts presented, collect taxes, pay them out to the state, where they are deposited to the recipient's electronic debit card. Government worker wages are paid at every stage of this process, and are ongoing. If you eliminate the government and have employers pay their workers more, the workers have more control over what they do with their own money, and you eliminate all of the government workers and expenses of running the food stamp programs.

The low wage workers become tax payers, taxes paid to social programs are reduced, the number of government workers employed processing applications and payments are reduced, and government gets smaller and cheaper. Better yet, since the worker wages are tax deductible, every $1 of additional wages corporations pay only costs that corporation $0.78 because it reduces the corporation's tax burden, and 22% of their profits go to taxes.

Yet fools like you continue to believe that raising the minimum wage rewards lazy people with no skills and harms people like you. There is no cure for stupid.
I don’t want to live in a nation that so mistreats it’s poor, but I do. How does the world’s richest nation have so many suffering people? It’s appalling, yet many Americans find it acceptable. Our culture is totally fucked.

Imagine this massive omnipresent expensive government actually trying to help poor Americans, rather then further enriching the extreme rich?
 
Where do billionaires come from?

Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much........

[emoji16]

Sorry, just thought I'd add some humor.
 

Forum List

Back
Top