The super rich do not hurt you

[jaeger19]

that isn't government action. it is the freedom of a business owner to hire whom he wants

Well.. that derives from the inaction of the government to protect the individual freedoms of the individual. Slavery was not a government institution. It was a free market institution. Employers forcing employees to take script for payment.. sending thugs to their door if they complained or tried to organize.. these were not government institutions but instruments of the free market.

The purpose of government is to make a level and fair playing field.. so that people can have liberty.

 

[jaeger19]

nice try but bogus. Not protecting unions is not related to the criminal justice system punishing violent crimes.

Sure it is. Protecting unions is about preventing intimidation. Its about protecting the worker from being intimidated by thugs showing up at your door and threatening to beat you up.. its being threatened with being fired if you don;t kow tow to the company. If you try to talk to other employees about "hey.. we shouldn;t take this.. lets all walk off and go somewhere else".. and then the employer fires you and blackballs you to any other employer. Laws protecting unions didn;t come about in a vacuum.. they came about because of abuses by employers.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sure it is. Protecting unions is about preventing intimidation. Its about protecting the worker from being intimidated by thugs showing up at your door and threatening to beat you up.. its being threatened with being fired if you don;t kow tow to the company. If you try to talk to other employees about "hey.. we shouldn;t take this.. lets all walk off and go somewhere else".. and then the employer fires you and blackballs you to any other employer. Laws protecting unions didn;t come about in a vacuum.. they came about because of abuses by employers.

that has nothing relevant to do with what I said. I don't believe the government should protect unions. If unions can convince enough available workers of their merit, then the union will prevail. If they cannot, they lose-which is proper

 

[TurtleDude]

Well.. that derives from the inaction of the government to protect the individual freedoms of the individual. Slavery was not a government institution. It was a free market institution. Employers forcing employees to take script for payment.. sending thugs to their door if they complained or tried to organize.. these were not government institutions but instruments of the free market.

The purpose of government is to make a level and fair playing field.. so that people can have liberty.

The purpose of government is to enforce the laws, settle disputes and protect the nation as a whole. Not make things "fair" which is a code word for socialist redistribution.

 

[jaeger19]

The purpose of government is to enforce the laws, settle disputes and protect the nation as a whole. Not make things "fair" which is a code word for socialist redistribution.

In other words them.. slavery should still be legal? Segregation should still be legal in the states.. child labor should still be legal at one time.. they were all legal..

And they abolished because they were not fair. So was desegregation "socialist redistribution?".. Was the ending of slavery "socialist redistribution"?

You said that government should enforce the laws? Well.. some of the laws on the books protect workers rights to unionize... sooooo should those laws be enforced? Or only those laws that you like?

You really aren;t making much of an argument here.

that has nothing relevant to do with what I said. I don't believe the government should protect unions. If unions can convince enough available workers of their merit, then the union will prevail. If they cannot, they lose-which is proper

It has everything to do with what you said. Sure.. if the unions can convince enough of available workers of their merit... but the you are fine if the employer wants to intimidate the worker by firing anyone who even talks to a union rep.. or other ways of intimidating workers.

Thats why there are protections in place to allow workers to decide for themselves without fear of intimidation. .

 

[Lfl]

The super rich do not run the economy they profit from it and double profit by not having to pay taxes.

The economy works from the 99% spending not from the rich hoarding money which is why the Dow dropped over 10K points when the pandemic started,

 

[jaeger19]

No,he can’t . If his employees vote in the union, he most negotiate, it’s the law.

Yep..he must negotiate.. that does not mean he ultimately has to sign a collective bargaining agreement. I didn't.

 

[Simpletruther]

Yep..he must negotiate.. that does not mean he ultimately has to sign a collective bargaining agreement. I didn't.

Which isn’t freedom.

And on a practical level the company could go bankrupt whirl negotiating, they ongoing debt obligations usually met by their revenue stream which gets interrupted during strikes.

The hands of employers tied, they have a metaphorical gun held to their heads. .

 

[rickc]

Then he was not making widgets here in America. Employers here have not given any raises since 1980. Strangely that coincides with Reagan's huge tax breaks that let them take more of the profits without giving over half of it to the govt. in taxes. It's almost like they decided to take all the increased profits for themselves as soon as the punitive tax rates were repealed. How rude. Right?

Finally somebody gets it!

Hallelujah

 

[TurtleDude]

In other words them.. slavery should still be legal? Segregation should still be legal in the states.. child labor should still be legal at one time.. they were all legal..

And they abolished because they were not fair. So was desegregation "socialist redistribution?".. Was the ending of slavery "socialist redistribution"?

You said that government should enforce the laws? Well.. some of the laws on the books protect workers rights to unionize... sooooo should those laws be enforced? Or only those laws that you like?

You really aren;t making much of an argument here.



It has everything to do with what you said. Sure.. if the unions can convince enough of available workers of their merit... but the you are fine if the employer wants to intimidate the worker by firing anyone who even talks to a union rep.. or other ways of intimidating workers.

Thats why there are protections in place to allow workers to decide for themselves without fear of intimidation. .

you are deliberately missing the entire point. You claim to be conservative yet you support the government guaranteeing unions. I cannot square the two.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States could automatically make this a moot point.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Anatole France

 

[iguanaman]

you are deliberately missing the entire point. You claim to be conservative yet you support the government guaranteeing unions. I cannot square the two.

The Govt. should support the rights of the weak and poor because nobody else will. We are a country that "guarantees" equal rights and equal protection under the law aren't we? Or like Orwell wrote "Some are more equal than others"?

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.

 

[danielpalos]

simplistic and stupid thinking at its silly zenith

Better solutions at lower cost.

 

[Bullseye]

Then he was not making widgets here in America. Employers here have not given any raises since 1980. Strangely that coincides with Reagan's huge tax breaks that let them take more of the profits without giving over half of it to the govt. in taxes. It's almost like they decided to take all the increased profits for themselves as soon as the punitive tax rates were repealed. How rude. Right?

What a surprise, people with desirable skills and knowledge earn more money is a society that demands more complex products and services while floor mopping and burger flipping doesn't.

 

[danielpalos]

Raise the minimum wage to prevailing wage in Right to Work States!

 

[iguanaman]

What a surprise, people with desirable skills and knowledge earn more money is a society that demands more complex products and services while floor mopping and burger flipping doesn't.

95% of the employed are floor moppers and burger flippers on the planet where you live? What a strange place that must be. There must be a lot of very fat people that can eat off their floors :lamo

Here on planet Earth this is what has happened since Reagan slashed the tax rates of the top earners. It is time we "encouraged" the CEO's to share in the wealth again. Guess how we did that in the postwar period when when our GDP grew the fastest? Go ahead guess.

CEO pay grabs a larger share of wages
In a nation of increasing inequality, the most extreme wage disparities are between the heads of large American corporations and typical workers. This figure tracks the ratio of pay of CEOs at the 350 largest public U.S. firms to the pay of typical workers in those firms’ industries. In 1965, these CEOs made 20 times what typical workers made. As of 2013, they make just under 300 times typical workers’ pay. This higher pay for CEOs does not reflect any increased contribution to corporate output: Other data show that CEO pay grew three times faster than the pay of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners and twice as fast as corporate profits. Moreover, the rising pay of executives was the largest factor in the doubling of the top 0.1 percent and top 1.0 percent share of overall household income growth. CEO pay gains help explain the growing divergence between pay and productivity.

Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts | Economic Policy Institute

 

[jaeger19]

Which isn’t freedom.

And on a practical level the company could go bankrupt whirl negotiating, they ongoing debt obligations usually met by their revenue stream which gets interrupted during strikes.

The hands of employers tied, they have a metaphorical gun held to their heads. .

Sure its freedom...

And by the way.. if the company is going bankrupt while negotiating...well then the company is not doing a good job of managing the company now are they.

The idea that workers.. in ANY Way have a "gun to the head of management"..is absolutely ludicrous. I own several businesses. I can fire and hire people at will. Even with a union.. I could do that. I could decide that I want to sell the business or just close up shop and turn everyone out.. or just move locations. The power pretty much all rests in the hands of the employer.. Its just a fact.

 

[jaeger19]

95% of the employed are floor moppers and burger flippers on the planet where you live? What a strange place that must be. There must be a lot of very fat people that can eat off their floors :lamo

Here on planet Earth this is what has happened since Reagan slashed the tax rates of the top earners. It is time we "encouraged" the CEO's to share in the wealth again. Guess how we did that in the postwar period when when our GDP grew the fastest? Go ahead guess.

Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts | Economic Policy Institute

Taxes pretty much have nothing to do with it.

 

[iguanaman]

Taxes pretty much have nothing to do with it.

Yes it is all just a coincidence that as soon as the confiscatory tax rates for high earners were repealed CEO's started taking all the increased profits for themselves instead of sharing them with their workers. They worked 300 times harder than before, that was the difference.:lol:

 

[swing_voter]

There is no pie.

The rich getting richer doesn't mean there's no money left for you. They aren't taking all the pie because there is no pie.

 

[rickc]

Taxes pretty much have nothing to do with it.

Taxes have everything to do with it. Before Reagan a rising tide raised all ships.

After the top marginal tax rate went from 70% to 28% the wealthy realized they could keep it all and they did.

To fix it go back to pre-reagan rates. Then the wealthy have 2 choices give it to the gov. In the form of taxes or invest in their companies and workers. Seems the middle class has had their best runs when the wealthy were heavily taxed.

Notice the last time taxes were this low and income inequality so high were the Hoover days

 

[jaeger19]

you are deliberately missing the entire point. You claim to be conservative yet you support the government guaranteeing unions. I cannot square the two.

No.. i get the point. YOU are deliberately trying to be obtuse.

The fact is.. the labor laws we have.. are the result of abuse by employers. Its just that simple.. because employers were not being "fair".. to employees. Paying them in script,, intimidating them.. making them work in unsafe conditions etc.

You seem to think that the only threat to freedom..is from government. Yet... slavery, paying workers in script, indentured servitude. child labor, working people in coal mines until they caught black lung.. etc.. were all free market inventions. The government has protected our freedom.. by making such things illegal and by regulating the employer and employee relationship so abuses are less likely to occur.

Yes.. I support the government protecting the right of workers to unionize.. just as I support the government protecting my right to self protect myself, own firearms, etc.

Why would I not support that as a conservative? Why would I want to go backwards in society where slavery, segregation, child labor, were the norms?

 

[ludin]

95% of the employed are floor moppers and burger flippers on the planet where you live? What a strange place that must be. There must be a lot of very fat people that can eat off their floors :lamo

Here on planet Earth this is what has happened since Reagan slashed the tax rates of the top earners. It is time we "encouraged" the CEO's to share in the wealth again. Guess how we did that in the postwar period when when our GDP grew the fastest? Go ahead guess.

Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts | Economic Policy Institute

Why is it no surprise that another leftist has no idea how to read a chart.
Why is it no surprise that another leftist has no clue about the information in the chart
and why it ends up like that?

no one should be and we aren't because this is like the 1000 time he has posted this same thing and the 1000 time he still doesn't understand it.

Productivity is mutually exclusive to wage. The only time that productivity and wage connects is in the persons skill to do a job.

I have used this before because it fits.

If you come to work to cut trees and i pay people 200 dollars per tree and you use an ax to chop tree's then your productivity isn't that good.
I will still pay your 200 a tree though. Now i hear about this new invention that will cut trees automatically. I go out and buy these things called
chainsaws. I put out thousands of dollars in time and money to buy and train people how to use them.

now though I am only paying 150 unless you bring your own chain saw. why? I have to recoup my costs.
now if you already know how to use a chain saw and you bring your own i will still pay 200.

I have additional costs in maintaining the saws etc now. so while your productivity might increase your labor is not as valuable.


automation and engineering has increased people's ability to do a great deal that doesn't mean that their labor value has increased.
During the 80's 2 things happened.

interest rates plummeted and the markets broke open with better technology and investments. computers replaced typewriters.
printers did as well.

 

[ludin]

Taxes have everything to do with it. Before Reagan a rising tide raised all ships.

After the top marginal tax rate went from 70% to 28% the wealthy realized they could keep it all and they did.

To fix it go back to pre-reagan rates. Then the wealthy have 2 choices give it to the gov. In the form of taxes or invest in their companies and workers. Seems the middle class has had their best runs when the wealthy were heavily taxed.

Notice the last time taxes were this low and income inequality so high were the Hoover days

View attachment 67290195

View attachment 67290196

View attachment 67290197

no the middle class had their best run when interest rates on CD/bonds were in the 18-20% margin.
after the early 70-89's interest rates dropped and the stock market become the go to place with the break through
of the internet.

The issue at the time for most people is that stock brokers were still expensive. buying and selling stocks was even worse.
there was a lot of money involved which is why most middle class people at the time invested CD's and bonds.

only in the past 10 years or so has stock market opened up to middle income america with free trading apps

 

[post]

A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

Just three men own more assets than the poorest 166 million Americans. The three have the resources to effectively counter the votes of that bottom half of the U.S. population. The bottom half literally spend every penny they have, annually, plus what they are able to borrow.

The three wealthiest men? Not so much! They literally do not drive consumer demand, in fact, they stifle it.
Their political influence does not emphasize progressive taxation, consumer protection, universal health insurance coverage, affordable secondary education, or a livable minimum wage.

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs - The New York Times
Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs
By Jason DeParle
Jan. 4, 2012

...Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.” Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”

Liberal commentators have long emphasized class, but the attention on the right is largely new.....

This is basic, I'm disappointed you've chosen to shill here for great wealth. Extreme wealth concentration is historically reversed by only two mean, ballots or bullets. Denial is not on that list! There's a river that runs through Egypt with a similar sounding name.

The barely visible red colored line at the bottom of this image, represents the segment of wealth owned by the bottom 50 percent.: