Dragonlady
Designing Woman
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.