• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criticism of billionairism

iguanaman said:
LOL The green line is wage growth in actual dollars. It amounts to 6 cents a year in increased purchasing power over 40 years. That is not wage growth it is a disaster for the middle class.
Click to expand...
If this is true then you will have no problem naming the key product that one can not find cheaper by purchasing power today?

Purchasing power is all over the map since we have a very different lifestyle and technological options:

Gold for example is like 4x more expensive.

A house however it depends, as discussed in post #33 and I think another. In at least 60+% of time the equivalent house by sqft is most certainly cheaper by purchasing power. There are areas where it is more expensive: san fransico bay area, but that is 100% land value due to higher population density. The problem with looking at the average price verse average wage is the average sqft per house was almost half the size in 1964. The income was also distributed differently as less of the top incomes were coming from 2 sources and there were more big families cover by a lower income. Another factor often left out is prime rate. A home in 1980 for example had the prime rate 6-12% range so price is relative to payments not sales price. All and all, the fact the avg sqft per year has gone up almost every year, should go to show people have more a lot more purchase power to upgrade.

Then there are very hard to compare products like cars, we have a very different transportation structure today. In some cases, it actually cheaper and more convient for a person to use a car share or uber than own a car. Car are also a lot more advanced. What is an equivalent car? A car with the same feature for example may run sub $10,000 today[less if you account for better safty standards].

Education - the returns are factors higher? Is a product being more expensive as a product of having a higher ROI not relevant?

Living Costs? New necessary expenses like internet, how should they factor in?
 
iguanaman said:
So American workers did not deserve any raises since 1970? Or is it that those in charge did not NEED to give any raises because those workers wanted to keep a roof over their families heads? You speak just like the rich did in the 1920's and look what happened to them. By the 1930's they were jumping out of buildings to their deaths.

FT_18.07.26_hourlyWage_adjusted.png
Click to expand...

Great analysis - and meanwhile the 1%ers have increased their wages by leaps and bounds.
 
Individual said:
The average wage has kept pace with inflation. Essentially, a job worth paying $2.50 per hour in 1964 now requires an employer to pay $22.65 to get the same job done. And the chart doesn't take into account additional benefits, sick leave, paid vacations, pensions, etc. which have grown in cost to the employers over the same period of time.
Click to expand...

So workers make the same while profits have soared and all those extra profits have gone to management. That sounds fair to you? Why did both wages and profits rise together until taxes were slashed on the wealthy and we began worshiping them as "job creators"? You do know that the real job creators are the consumers. When they stop buying what happens to the jobs? Who makes up most of America's consumers?

iCTuo.jpg
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
So workers make the same while profits have soared and all those extra profits have gone to management. That sounds fair to you? Why did both wages and profits rise together until taxes were slashed on the wealthy and we began worshiping them as "job creators"? You do know that the real job creators are the consumers. When they stop buying what happens to the jobs? Who makes up most of America's consumers?

iCTuo.jpg
Click to expand...

On one side we have the investors and management, and on the other side the employees.
The investors are the risk takers, hoping to profit as a result.
The management are held responsible for the success/failure by the investors.
Employees are hired on the basis of the employers assessment of their ability to perform some necessary function(s), and are usually offered a wage or a starting wage with predetermined increases to a top wage.
The top wage is what the employer is willing to pay the most proficient employee for his/her time, regardless of the companies profits/losses. Key here is when profits are down and losses are occurring, some employees may be let go, but those who remain do not have their pay cut.
Changes to the top wage are driven by inflation, primarily the devaluation of the dollar, and NOT AT ALL on the profits of the business which are primary in application to the salaries of the management and returns to the investors.
And yes indeed, that sounds fair to me.
Advances in technology have resulted in the creation of many new jobs over time which demand a much higher educated employee resulting in a higher wage needing to be offered.
Wages and profits are not directly tied to tax increases/decreases, but more so to consumer demand, willingness and ability to purchase a product/service at a price exceeding the total costs of providing.
Consumers do not create jobs, but by consuming they do help maintain some jobs. Obviously when people stop buying something, some or all the people who were employed in that area lose their jobs.
"Who makes up most of America's consumers?" People, obviously. Who else consumes monetarily what is produced by America?
 
Individual said:
On one side we have the investors and management, and on the other side the employees.
The investors are the risk takers, hoping to profit as a result.
The management are held responsible for the success/failure by the investors.
Employees are hired on the basis of the employers assessment of their ability to perform some necessary function(s), and are usually offered a wage or a starting wage with predetermined increases to a top wage.
The top wage is what the employer is willing to pay the most proficient employee for his/her time, regardless of the companies profits/losses. Key here is when profits are down and losses are occurring, some employees may be let go, but those who remain do not have their pay cut.
Changes to the top wage are driven by inflation, primarily the devaluation of the dollar, and NOT AT ALL on the profits of the business which are primary in application to the salaries of the management and returns to the investors.
And yes indeed, that sounds fair to me.
Advances in technology have resulted in the creation of many new jobs over time which demand a much higher educated employee resulting in a higher wage needing to be offered.
Wages and profits are not directly tied to tax increases/decreases, but more so to consumer demand, willingness and ability to purchase a product/service at a price exceeding the total costs of providing.
Consumers do not create jobs, but by consuming they do help maintain some jobs. Obviously when people stop buying something, some or all the people who were employed in that area lose their jobs.
"Who makes up most of America's consumers?" People, obviously. Who else consumes monetarily what is produced by America?
Click to expand...

You respond as if there are checks and balances on the pay of CEOs and other top executives. There are no checks and balances. They sit on each other's Boards, and make 10x the average American, in that capacity, just to go to one meeting each year.

They vote themselves huge salary increases, stock options, and bonuses. The system is rigged, and those folks are laughing at America all the way to the bank.
 
Individual said:
On one side we have the investors and management, and on the other side the employees.
The investors are the risk takers, hoping to profit as a result.
The management are held responsible for the success/failure by the investors.
Employees are hired on the basis of the employers assessment of their ability to perform some necessary function(s), and are usually offered a wage or a starting wage with predetermined increases to a top wage.
The top wage is what the employer is willing to pay the most proficient employee for his/her time, regardless of the companies profits/losses. Key here is when profits are down and losses are occurring, some employees may be let go, but those who remain do not have their pay cut.
Changes to the top wage are driven by inflation, primarily the devaluation of the dollar, and NOT AT ALL on the profits of the business which are primary in application to the salaries of the management and returns to the investors.
And yes indeed, that sounds fair to me.
Advances in technology have resulted in the creation of many new jobs over time which demand a much higher educated employee resulting in a higher wage needing to be offered.
Wages and profits are not directly tied to tax increases/decreases, but more so to consumer demand, willingness and ability to purchase a product/service at a price exceeding the total costs of providing.
Consumers do not create jobs, but by consuming they do help maintain some jobs. Obviously when people stop buying something, some or all the people who were employed in that area lose their jobs.
"Who makes up most of America's consumers?" People, obviously. Who else consumes monetarily what is produced by America?
Click to expand...

You still didn't explain why if the years from 1945 to 1975 wages rose as productivity rose leading to massive corporate and GDP growth as the workers/consumers spent their ever rising incomes. This is how you get real growth.. During those years CEO's made 20 times their workers instead of 300 times like today. Why didn't CEO's take higher salaries in the 50's -70's? Their companies were certainly thriving. I think I know what happened in the 1980's that effected the salaries of CEO's and management in a very positive way. Care to guess what that was?

BTW Consumers create nearly all jobs and maintain them too. Without consumer demand there are no companies and no jobs. And CEO's pay their workers with the money consumers pay them.
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
You respond as if there are checks and balances on the pay of CEOs and other top executives. There are no checks and balances. They sit on each other's Boards, and make 10x the average American, in that capacity, just to go to one meeting each year.

They vote themselves huge salary increases, stock options, and bonuses. The system is rigged, and those folks are laughing at America all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

So runaway inflation would resolve the issue? Can you imagine the consequences or raising the minimum wage to say, $25 and hour?
 
iguanaman said:
You still didn't explain why if the years from 1945 to 1975 wages rose as productivity rose leading to massive corporate and GDP growth as the workers/consumers spent their ever rising incomes. This is how you get real growth.. During those years CEO's made 20 times their workers instead of 300 times like today. Why didn't CEO's take higher salaries in the 50's -70's? Their companies were certainly thriving. I think I know what happened in the 1980's that effected the salaries of CEO's and management in a very positive way. Care to guess what that was?

BTW Consumers create nearly all jobs and maintain them too. Without consumer demand there are no companies and no jobs. And CEO's pay their workers with the money consumers pay them.
Click to expand...

Primarily, technology advancement resulting in the creation new and higher paying jobs. High taxes deter salary increases, making other means by which taxes could be deferred or avoided preferable.

I don't find guessing games very entertaining, so no, but if you care to share you thoughts I might find that to be entertaining.
 
Individual said:
Primarily, technology advancement resulting in the creation new and higher paying jobs. High taxes deter salary increases, making other means by which taxes could be deferred or avoided preferable.

I don't find guessing games very entertaining, so no, but if you care to share you thoughts I might find that to be entertaining.
Click to expand...

You got it!! "High taxes deter high salaries" is the correct answer. No one took millions in salaries when the Govt. was going to take 70 to 90%. They shared the increased profits with the workers instead. That is what built America's great middle class and made us the envy of the world. Reagan turned it all to ****.
 
grainbelt said:
I hypothesize that supporting, subsidizing, or protecting the creation or sustenance of billionaires is antithetical to supporting a strong middle class and in turn a strong consumer capitalist economy.
Click to expand...

The analogy I like to make is to that of a poker tournament. If you know anything about poker you know that as the game goes on certain people start to amass huge chip leads while others are left with next to nothing. The game ends when all the chips are in the hands of one person. As certain individuals see their chip stacks grow they gain the ability to bully other players around. They can play more hands with worse cards knowing full well that even if they lose it's not going to hurt them. Meanwhile, those with low stacks are often forced to make bad choices because their resources are so limited. Over time it becomes anti-competitive.

Unlike a poker tournament, however, a real-world economy isn't supposed to end. No individual is ever supposed to win it's supposed to be ongoing and last forever No players should ever be completely knocked out. Putting limits on the size of a chip lead that a person is allowed to make use of would be necessary for a poker game to be unending. It would have to ensure that players can't be knocked out of the game entirely by ensuring that they always have at least a "chip and a chair." You would need rules similar to what they have in pot-limit hold'em that prevent big stacks from using their wealth to push others around.
 
MrWonka said:
Housing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-anywhere-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.8d691b8c6101
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I hit a pay wall, but the headline "minimum wage worker can not afford housing." I can respond.

I mentioned three factors which I argue need to be controlled when comparing relative-housing price over time: cost per sqft not list average sales price, regional variations based on population density(or proximity like with Hawaii) & Prime rate.

Controlling for those the changes in price spilits but generally fall in: 1/3 cheaper, 1/3 about the same, 1/3 significantly more expensive. With a peak in price the 1980s due to prime rate.

I would agree that 'minimal wage workers'(low income) especially those in highly population dense areas have a deeping general purchasing power problem especially on housing. These areas also do have more billionaires per million. So these situations are connected.

That problem though has been addressed to some degree although perhaps naively post 'war on poverty', but the measures proven to not be longterm solutions to the trends. Perhaps why we need to shift toward negative taxation or guarantee income or some other new solution methodology. Cost vs benefit is as out of wack as much as problems with systemic poverty.

In regards to the middle class though, which are defined as 67% of the mean up to 200%[upto $150,000 / year]. We would conclude based on the pattren although this affects some ~1/3 [especially in high population dense areas where the prices due to land value are 300%+ higher] it doesn't not effect all or even most, and the mean has in real terms moved upward. Part of why the bottom has slightly grown [as the mean increases the tails increase] although this increase in the bottom does not necessarily follow if you control by income earner / family size instead of household income. Low incomes tend to be smaller and less earners which distort the apples to apples comparisons.
 
Individual said:
So runaway inflation would resolve the issue? Can you imagine the consequences or raising the minimum wage to say, $25 and hour?
Click to expand...

Quite the deflection. If you want to shy away from the topic, so be it.
 
iguanaman said:
You got it!! "High taxes deter high salaries" is the correct answer. No one took millions in salaries when the Govt. was going to take 70 to 90%. They shared the increased profits with the workers instead. That is what built America's great middle class and made us the envy of the world. Reagan turned it all to ****.
Click to expand...

Except that it is not. High taxes result in those who they would be imposed on taking corrective action to reduce their immediate tax liability. This is a major reason I don't put much value on charts and graphs. People tend to read into them what they want them to say. Technology built our middle class (manufacturing jobs which were worth employers paying employees a higher wage), and inflation is slowly destroying it (production moving to countries where the cost of living is much less).
 
Individual said:
Except that it is not. High taxes result in those who they would be imposed on taking corrective action to reduce their immediate tax liability. This is a major reason I don't put much value on charts and graphs. People tend to read into them what they want them to say. Technology built our middle class (manufacturing jobs which were worth employers paying employees a higher wage), and inflation is slowly destroying it (production moving to countries where the cost of living is much less).
Click to expand...

Wrong. Productivity kept on moving up at the same rate and profits went thru the roof since 2000. The only thing "destroyed" was the increasing buying power of the middle class.

corpprofit-1.jpg


600px-FRED_graph_of_US_labor_share_1948%E2%80%932016.svg.png
 
Media_Truth said:
Quite the deflection. If you want to shy away from the topic, so be it.
Click to expand...

Not at all, the shareholders provide the checks and balances NOT the employees who are provided employment opportunity as a result of the investment by the share owners of the business.
 
iguanaman said:
Wrong. Productivity kept on moving up at the same rate and profits went thru the roof since 2000. The only thing "destroyed" was the increasing buying power of the middle class.

corpprofit-1.jpg


600px-FRED_graph_of_US_labor_share_1948%E2%80%932016.svg.png
Click to expand...

Essentially the chart only shows that profits increase when spending increases, and profits decrease when spending decreases. Much of GDP growth is a result of government spending, subsidizing a growing number of the population who are 'lo/no' 'income earners/taxpayers' as our population grows beyond the employment needs to produce its needs, exacerbated by many jobs which would pay high wages being moved abroad, reducing the costs of production and increases the profits without need to raise the price.

Our government is NOT fixing anything by simply pacifying irrational demands which have arisen as a result of government inducement and division primarily for the benefit of government and politicians, but is instead allowing, perhaps even intentionally, problems to grow to crisis levels and making them appear to be improved/improving by application of our fiat monetary system, taxes and social programs.
 
Conaeolos said:
I agree with these principles 100%, but your methods I couldn't disagree with more strongly. Allow me to explain.


No. When those large corporations(wealthy) go away what happens is there is less money in the total pot. You have more equality at the cost of a lower overall standard fo living. Eventually foreign large corporations will take advantage and you'll lose on both fronts.

This things comes from the income distribution gap: e.g. source to see how different sectors are doing.

Bottom 90%: -5%
Top 10%: 75%
Top 0.01%: 325%
*The more you graduate the greater the raise

That seems damning until you consider that the largest income growth in that comparison period was coming from foreign markets. See the world curve does not look like this at all(we are averaging). The reason for the massive growth rate at the top is foreign wealth enters the country through the top 0.01%. Changes in the 0.01% in this period reflect those realities. This new income is only distributed indirectly for the 99.5% the domestic growth rate is much lower.

Another thing worth considering is although that accounts for inflation that is a very poor way of measure changes in living standards. Taxes were way less as government provided far less public services in the past not to mention changes in technologies, choices and expectations. The advantages of owning a car in 1960 say equivalent to modern transportation options which can cost a lot less, what is the worth of a $50/mo internet connection, a luxury item like a tv or computer is now in most people's pockets? On that a car or house, is the average one built in 1960 the same as one built today? Houses are bigger now, more energy efficient etc etc. Car are more environmental friends, faster, comfier, have computers build in etc etc

An upper-middle class life in 1970 would be maybe working class by 2019 standards. In terms of lack of technology, healthcare, entertainment, convinces etc.

Living standards have certainly not gone down or improved as slowly as that chart alone would indicate.


I agree with most of these although likely disagree in detail. The problem with progressive taxation is it is scam. For example In 2018 we had 2,208 billionaire in the world worth 9.1 trillion dollars of 317 trillion (3%). In 2000 we had 470 worth about 1 trillion of 117 trillion USD (less 1% of total).

470 -> 2,208 increase by a factor of 4.4 (440%)

1% -> 3% increase by a factor of 3 (300%)

6b -> 7.7b increse of 28%

116,000/6 -> 317000/7.7 increase factor of 1.12 (112%)


Diversification of the top is fastest growing factor, yes there is a concentration but slower than the rate of which people are joining and with a significantly more wealth being added for the 99.9% of people(doubling and then some).

Progressive taxation may or may not affect the rate of concentration but not by much since that is not caused by having unfairly low taxation (in fact we find the opposite). It will however vastly affect the diversification factor as income is what is needed to go from 99.9% to 0.01%. So what you would certianly see is who is wealthy stays wealthy.


The income is often coming from offshore in the first place and second what do you think is more likely to be a new growing small business a new yacht company or one that makes a mass consumer product like groceries?


Kind of like how the government concentrates more and more wealth and gives especially nicely to those at the top they deemed more politically important?


That is why the fact we have more billionaire than most is to the American advantage. The US has 1.7 billionaires per million, China 0.3, France 0.5, Zimbabwe 0.05. Etc etc. In which country does the 0.01% hold more power the one with 585 or 1?
Click to expand...

Methinks your figures are out of date...www.dailymail.co.uk/.../China-overtakes-U-S-billionaires-world-America-richest....
 
grainbelt said:
I hypothesize that supporting, subsidizing, or protecting the creation or sustenance of billionaires is antithetical to supporting a strong middle class and in turn a strong consumer capitalist economy.

If you get the idea that removing a middle man from a supply chain could lower cost and enrich the whole thing, you should also get that removing the billionaire at the top could do something similar. By not having to appease the billionaires big ROI, income instead is dispersed at lower levels amongst more people and spent much more efficiently in the economy. To this end, progressive taxation, enforcement of tax and other white collar laws, anti trust laws, all need to be strengthened and enforced. Competition needs to be restored as a necessary pillar of our form of capitalism. Worker and consumer rights need to be elevated. Small businesses should be incentivized further. And the various governments need to stop pandering to mega conglomerates. This kills competition!

Theres no leeway for more corporatist judicial decisions or laws. They are middle class killers that suck the wealth and opportunity out and away from the working class.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd go a step further by saying that billionaires are a direct threat to democracy through their financial and economic manipulation of government. Some individuals have so much money and capital assets that they could influence the economy through reallocation. At some point in the future, I hope we reign in how wealth can control society. I don't really care if some billionaires display some altruism; money is power and that much power concentrated into the hands of one person is not safe.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
You got it!! "High taxes deter high salaries" is the correct answer. No one took millions in salaries when the Govt. was going to take 70 to 90%. They shared the increased profits with the workers instead. That is what built America's great middle class and made us the envy of the world. Reagan turned it all to ****.
Click to expand...

You must have missed 70s inflation, stagflation, changing the money standard and other things that ruined wage gains well before Reagan. It hasn't gone well since then.
 
Individual said:
And the executive with a $2m income would then demand a raise to $3.13m to offset the tax increase or some other means of remuneration to avoid the tax increase.

Government needs the top 10% of income earners to provide the 'means for/votes of' the bottom 40%, and as a result most of the remaining inner 50% remain employed and receive wage increases to offset most but not all the inflation costs of daily life.

The devils in the details.
Click to expand...
Is that what happened when the top tax-rate was 91%? No. Executive compensation skyrocket AFTER tax-rates were lowered.

ceo-pay.png


Government income comes from the top 10% because that's where the money is. Taxing the poorest Americans doesn't raise much money while placing an onerous burden on those people, who have little disposable income.
 
MTAtech said:
Is that what happened when the top tax-rate was 91%? No. Executive compensation skyrocket AFTER tax-rates were lowered.

ceo-pay.png


Government income comes from the top 10% because that's where the money is. Taxing the poorest Americans doesn't raise much money while placing an onerous burden on those people, who have little disposable income.
Click to expand...

The burden remains on the top 10% who by being compensated more are able to provide government with the revenue it needs at a lower tax rate while not having a noticeable effect on profits of the shareholders.

I'm not fixated on the highest income earners. If you want some of their money, produce something for them to spend it on. That's how the wealth they possess was acquired, and yes in some cases passed down to their undeserving offspring. /S
 
Individual said:
The burden remains on the top 10% who by being compensated more are able to provide government with the revenue it needs at a lower tax rate while not having a noticeable effect on profits of the shareholders.

I'm not fixated on the highest income earners. If you want some of their money, produce something for them to spend it on. That's how the wealth they possess was acquired, and yes in some cases passed down to their undeserving offspring.
Click to expand...
Actually, most in the wealthy class were born into wealthy families.

I'll let Jon Stewart answer the overall issue.

 
MTAtech said:
Actually, most in the wealthy class were born into wealthy families.

I'll let Jon Stewart answer the overall issue.

Click to expand...


Even if true, that would mean not all.

I don't know Jon Stewart nor am I conversing with him, so you're welcome to paraphrase him in your own words if you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom