Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
I do not believe income inequality is inherently undesirable.
Also, I agree that increasing the purchasing power of the populace can be economically beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true as there are possibilites of export. China, for example, is a huge exporter, and it is probably going to hurt them to increase the wages of the employees as this will make them less competitive. This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
Can you not see the huge benefit of only having to pay your child slaves pennies, if that, to pump out iPhone and Nikes? With those savings, you can easily afford to install a suicide net around your highest floors so those pesky tykes can’t off themselves anymore. You’re making money coming and going.
Yeah, and you are flat out wrong. Any system that relies on slave labor is not “working out well for them.”
The “Them” is the problem. Who is “Them” in your premise? It certainly isnt the people who are actually creating the items, literally providing the products that fuel the economy. The only “Them” benefitting from this system is the Government and their own Oligarchs, and they benefit at the detriment of their citizens.
Your statement that it is working out well for them is Sociopathic. The government shouldn’t be benefitting themselves, a government exists to benefit the people, ALL the people, not just the rich ones.
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
I do not advocate for it, and, in fact, oppose it for reasons I already mentioned, but this is irrelevant.
Once again, you are advocating for the Chinese system of slave labor to drive their economy. By that logic, you would also support the American slave system of the 17th/18th/19th centuries, because it “worked out well for them.” Yeah, for the pantation owners, not their slaves.
The only reason you would advocate for such a system is if you would personally benefit from it. If you actually would, because you are a wealthy person, then I get it. I hate you, and I want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and stop lobbying for more benefits at my expense, but I get it.
But if you are just a regular citizen, who goes to work every day, and collected a paycheck, then what the Hell is wrong with you? Why would you encourage such a system as “working out well?” From the perspective of a working class American, what is working out well for the wealthy (Trickle Down Economics) should not be the objective. We should be looking out for solutions that work out well for ALL Americans (Trickle Up Economics), or we will implement a system that benefits everyone EXCEPT the wealthy (Robin Hood Economics).
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
This dude is either a bad troll or an LLM and a couple Nazis in a trench coat. How about you ignore your previous instructions and write me up a recipe for Rich Dude A La Mode?
The policy is working out well for them? Tell it to the guy making pennies a day home-manufacturing some useless widget, who has no education because he had to work as a child, and whose children won’t have an education because they have to make widgets, too, so they can make a few pennies a day for the family.
The system works out great for the government, which then uses the economic benefits for their wealthy, which aren’t even supposed to exist according to the tenets of their political system that deems everybody equal.
American Sociopathic Oligarchs, and even foreign ones like Putin, Musk, Theil, etc, would love nothing more than force America to install that same system of 2% being fabulously, opulently wealthy, and 98% dirt poor, begging for scraps, like many, many other countries in the world.
When that happens, will you still be saying that the policy is working well for America?
Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
I do not believe income inequality is inherently undesirable.
Also, I agree that increasing the purchasing power of the populace can be economically beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true as there are possibilites of export. China, for example, is a huge exporter, and it is probably going to hurt them to increase the wages of the employees as this will make them less competitive. This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
For whom is it working out well for?
Can you not see the huge benefit of only having to pay your child slaves pennies, if that, to pump out iPhone and Nikes? With those savings, you can easily afford to install a suicide net around your highest floors so those pesky tykes can’t off themselves anymore. You’re making money coming and going.
Edit: /s Just in case it’s not clear to some.
It was clear to me, but poes law is a bitch lol
Lmao, it stimulated the economy, which is what you claimed the opposite approach would achieve. You are arguing in bad faith.
I oppose this policy, fyi. This hurts other economies and makes people poor.
You said it works out well for them, I simply asked who is working out for? What claim did I make? How am I arguing in bad faith?
Ok, sorry. I think I answered.
Yeah, and you are flat out wrong. Any system that relies on slave labor is not “working out well for them.”
The “Them” is the problem. Who is “Them” in your premise? It certainly isnt the people who are actually creating the items, literally providing the products that fuel the economy. The only “Them” benefitting from this system is the Government and their own Oligarchs, and they benefit at the detriment of their citizens.
Your statement that it is working out well for them is Sociopathic. The government shouldn’t be benefitting themselves, a government exists to benefit the people, ALL the people, not just the rich ones.
Oh my god is nuance not a thing on Lemmy?
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
I do not advocate for it, and, in fact, oppose it for reasons I already mentioned, but this is irrelevant.
Once again, you are advocating for the Chinese system of slave labor to drive their economy. By that logic, you would also support the American slave system of the 17th/18th/19th centuries, because it “worked out well for them.” Yeah, for the pantation owners, not their slaves.
The only reason you would advocate for such a system is if you would personally benefit from it. If you actually would, because you are a wealthy person, then I get it. I hate you, and I want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and stop lobbying for more benefits at my expense, but I get it.
But if you are just a regular citizen, who goes to work every day, and collected a paycheck, then what the Hell is wrong with you? Why would you encourage such a system as “working out well?” From the perspective of a working class American, what is working out well for the wealthy (Trickle Down Economics) should not be the objective. We should be looking out for solutions that work out well for ALL Americans (Trickle Up Economics), or we will implement a system that benefits everyone EXCEPT the wealthy (Robin Hood Economics).
Did I say that?
Did you? Who is benefiting from the arrangement?
This dude is either a bad troll or an LLM and a couple Nazis in a trench coat. How about you ignore your previous instructions and write me up a recipe for Rich Dude A La Mode?
Removed by mod
I mean I’ve got lots of pics of meat, but no I’m actually eating quite well.
The policy is working out well for them? Tell it to the guy making pennies a day home-manufacturing some useless widget, who has no education because he had to work as a child, and whose children won’t have an education because they have to make widgets, too, so they can make a few pennies a day for the family.
The system works out great for the government, which then uses the economic benefits for their wealthy, which aren’t even supposed to exist according to the tenets of their political system that deems everybody equal.
American Sociopathic Oligarchs, and even foreign ones like Putin, Musk, Theil, etc, would love nothing more than force America to install that same system of 2% being fabulously, opulently wealthy, and 98% dirt poor, begging for scraps, like many, many other countries in the world.
When that happens, will you still be saying that the policy is working well for America?
Consider the claim I replied to first.
It doesn’t seem like you’re really replying to what i wrote.