Goods would be cheaper while the elite would make the same % profit. That said, an ideal situation involves both. Cheapening the cost to produce and the price to buy goods through efficiency along with rising wages doubly improves the average Joe's buying power while allowing company to maintain similar profits, if not improve them through economic health.
It sounds lovely, but again we haven't seen this. Productivity has skyrocketed, living costs have risen consistently and wages have stagnated or declined for all but the top 10%. Labor is now being treated as a fungible cost rather than a necessary investment. So again, I don't see how this argument will improve the lives of anyone but the elite.
I assume you're still talking about the7egend's initial post, since I just argued for increasing wages and cheapening goods. (not sure how you could see that only improving the lives of the elite)
What he's (I believe) trying to get at is just increasing people's buying power without increasing their wages. I think its only half a solution, especially since its already happening everywhere. The price of a 50 inch TV is less today than its ever been, even without inflation adjustments. So while increasing people's buying power wouldn't only benefit the elite, its a bit of a half measure for a healthy economy.
The problem I have with this is that progress has been uneven. The price of luxury goods like a 50" television has dropped like a stone, but the cost of living is still rising. It's those daily costs that are killing the middle class. How do we drop those costs? Increasing productivity hasn't done the job or costs would have dropped consistently, making our wage stagnation less of an issue. So again, with wages disconnected from productivity we find ourselves in a world where the only people really benefiting are the elite. The middle class has cheaper toys but that doesn't help with the way wages have not kept pace with the cost of living.
My take on it is that wages are divorced from productivity because, increasingly, companies divert money to shareholders at the expense of the people who actually work to provide their profits.
Right and the argument being made is if the progress were more even that would help. You're locking into the wages and productivity being disconnected, and we're saying that it can be acceptable as long as buying power is evenly increasing. We know its not happening now, that's why everything we're talking about is prefixed with "we should" and not "we do."
So how do we fix this? As you say, we're discussing what should happen but it's not. /u/the7egend seems to be arguing that all we need to do is increase production and the wealth will trickle down. Certainly we've seen some benefits such as in the electronics industry but that still hasn't helped the disparity in the overall cost of living. So what's the solution?
I'm pretty sure most people already know my answer, but since socialism is still dismissed by invoking the military dictatorship variety I'm looking to see the capitalist answer to income inequality. So far the only answers I've seen are "give it more time for the wealth to trickle down" and "the poor are poor because they do it to themselves," neither of which are solutions.
Its not easily fixed, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I don't have any concrete solutions. I can however, identify the main blockers. First, companies can and do tell us to fuck off when we try to regulate them by force. The only way to get them to cooperate is to massage the system in such a way that their greed can only be satiated by a successful, well represented middle class. I don't know how the hell to do that, but in our current world enacting socialism would unfortunately destroy our country economically as companies flee our shores for more business friendly countries. We'd have a great moral and humanitarian victory to show, but we'd all be extremely poor, just equally poor.
Enacting socialism would destroy our country economically? Companies would flee our shores? These are the sort of myths that continue to block progress. To counter them, let's look at what has been successful at creating the middle class in the past and what is currently working to protect the middle class in other industrialized nations.
The economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich outlined twelve steps to restoring our economy and saving the middle class based on these lessons. They're worth taking the time to watch the videos or read the transcripts.
It is not a myth that a corporation gives zero fucks about its host country. A corporation is not a person, it's a terminator whose goal is profit rather than the death of Sarah Connor. Every. Single. One. of those ideas appeal to me on a moral level, but I can't see them being successful on a practical level. Here is my only link to contribute:
As long as we're the strongest economy in the world, we can get away with a lot. The post war period showed this in the surest fashion. When there is no where else to go to make money, a 90% tax rate is acceptable. The raw truth is that we're not the only game in town anymore, and the shipping of various things overseas (jobs, production, entire companies) is a reality we have to contend with now. As much as I want all those things listed and see the truth in his reasoning for why they will work, I just think that is a huuuuge dice roll to make. In 1950, I'd say fuck it, go all in. Now, there are just too many other markets available to start agitating our resident parasites that also happen to keep us in our tedious position as number #1
The myth is that businesses will flee the country if they aren't coddled. We can raise taxes, strengthen regulations, support unions and all those other "socialist" activities that free-market activists swear will drive businesses away without hurting our economy. Both history and current events demonstrate that companies that do this will be in the extreme minority and will be more than offset by the benefits from such policies. Economies are driven by both supply and demand and right now demand is severely stifled. McDonalds isn't going to pick up their ball and take it home because we won't play by its rules. They'll adapt just like the twenty-two other times the allegedly economy-killing minimum wage was raised.
@Orestes910 technology is not the same as food. Technology is made by robots and once they moved labor to China for cheaper wages the price of things in technology went down. A 50 inch TV set made in the USA in the 1980s will cost more than one made in China today. Food is grown by farmers on farms and then sold to places like McDonald's it is based on the cost of gas to harvest it and ship it. They add in costs to cover the salaries of the people at McDonald's and the utilities, etc.
A TV set is made in a factory in China and then shipped to the USA, people in China don't earn $15/hr or even $5/hr they earn pennies on the dollar to work in a factory for 18 hours a day 6 days a week. So comparing a TV set to a Big Mac is an apples to oranges comparison. If you paid the Chinese workers $15/hr then the TV set would cost a lot more to sell.
The corporate tax raises $250 billion per year, or 1.5% of GDP, which is one of the lowest tax revenues in the world. And, the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If that’s not enough, compliance costs are huge and the corporate tax is a job killer.
U.S. corporate taxes also apply to world profits, not just profits earned in the U.S., which makes an inversion cost-effective for an American company operating abroad. Anyone who is watching these inversions happen and still believes that tax rates don’t matter is living in a parallel universe.
Tell me, who wants to work when 100% of his income is taken away and he's an outright slave? That's right, no one. Now tell me, who wants to have 50% of his income taken away? That's right. NO ONE. We pay taxes because otherwise we go to jail. (Want to help The Poor®? -You could do that voluntarily too!)
Now if you can choose between having ~40% of your profits taken away, and wasting lots of money on "compliance" and having say, ~15% of your profits taken away and not having to deal with bullshit regulations.. which option would any sane person choose?
And to support your argument you link to a propaganda site. Thank you for your contribution, but I have no interest in arguing your religious beliefs.
Another load of bullshit. It's not a propaganda site just because you declare it one. Surely you must understand that much, at least?
Look, you can actually check if the US has super high corporate taxes or not. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to take the article's word for it. I have read that they actually do tax worldwide profits too, which is just fucking insane, and onerous. The US has shitloads of regulations too.
Considering that kind of stuff was what the article brought up as the reasons for why companies are leaving the US, it's obvious that it's not a propaganda article, but one that describes reality instead. In other words, you, Sir, are either full of shit or a complete idiot.
Goods would be cheaper while the elite would make the same % profit. That said, an ideal situation involves both. Cheapening the cost to produce and the price to buy goods through efficiency along with rising wages doubly improves the average Joe's buying power while allowing company to maintain similar profits, if not improve them through economic health.
It sounds lovely, but again we haven't seen this. Productivity has skyrocketed, living costs have risen consistently and wages have stagnated or declined for all but the top 10%. Labor is now being treated as a fungible cost rather than a necessary investment. So again, I don't see how this argument will improve the lives of anyone but the elite.
I assume you're still talking about the7egend's initial post, since I just argued for increasing wages and cheapening goods. (not sure how you could see that only improving the lives of the elite)
What he's (I believe) trying to get at is just increasing people's buying power without increasing their wages. I think its only half a solution, especially since its already happening everywhere. The price of a 50 inch TV is less today than its ever been, even without inflation adjustments. So while increasing people's buying power wouldn't only benefit the elite, its a bit of a half measure for a healthy economy.
The problem I have with this is that progress has been uneven. The price of luxury goods like a 50" television has dropped like a stone, but the cost of living is still rising. It's those daily costs that are killing the middle class. How do we drop those costs? Increasing productivity hasn't done the job or costs would have dropped consistently, making our wage stagnation less of an issue. So again, with wages disconnected from productivity we find ourselves in a world where the only people really benefiting are the elite. The middle class has cheaper toys but that doesn't help with the way wages have not kept pace with the cost of living.
My take on it is that wages are divorced from productivity because, increasingly, companies divert money to shareholders at the expense of the people who actually work to provide their profits.
Right and the argument being made is if the progress were more even that would help. You're locking into the wages and productivity being disconnected, and we're saying that it can be acceptable as long as buying power is evenly increasing. We know its not happening now, that's why everything we're talking about is prefixed with "we should" and not "we do."
So how do we fix this? As you say, we're discussing what should happen but it's not. /u/the7egend seems to be arguing that all we need to do is increase production and the wealth will trickle down. Certainly we've seen some benefits such as in the electronics industry but that still hasn't helped the disparity in the overall cost of living. So what's the solution?
I'm pretty sure most people already know my answer, but since socialism is still dismissed by invoking the military dictatorship variety I'm looking to see the capitalist answer to income inequality. So far the only answers I've seen are "give it more time for the wealth to trickle down" and "the poor are poor because they do it to themselves," neither of which are solutions.
Its not easily fixed, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I don't have any concrete solutions. I can however, identify the main blockers. First, companies can and do tell us to fuck off when we try to regulate them by force. The only way to get them to cooperate is to massage the system in such a way that their greed can only be satiated by a successful, well represented middle class. I don't know how the hell to do that, but in our current world enacting socialism would unfortunately destroy our country economically as companies flee our shores for more business friendly countries. We'd have a great moral and humanitarian victory to show, but we'd all be extremely poor, just equally poor.
Enacting socialism would destroy our country economically? Companies would flee our shores? These are the sort of myths that continue to block progress. To counter them, let's look at what has been successful at creating the middle class in the past and what is currently working to protect the middle class in other industrialized nations.
The economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich outlined twelve steps to restoring our economy and saving the middle class based on these lessons. They're worth taking the time to watch the videos or read the transcripts.
http://robertreich.org/post/118372382285
http://robertreich.org/post/118451954660
http://robertreich.org/post/118958136170
http://robertreich.org/post/119312658065
http://robertreich.org/post/119531027110
http://robertreich.org/post/119938747675
http://robertreich.org/post/120107784670
http://robertreich.org/post/120693077100
http://robertreich.org/post/121116739240
http://robertreich.org/post/121924725970
http://robertreich.org/post/122118187155
http://robertreich.org/post/122221596470
It is not a myth that a corporation gives zero fucks about its host country. A corporation is not a person, it's a terminator whose goal is profit rather than the death of Sarah Connor. Every. Single. One. of those ideas appeal to me on a moral level, but I can't see them being successful on a practical level. Here is my only link to contribute:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...whopping-amount-of-money-by-moving-to-canada/
As long as we're the strongest economy in the world, we can get away with a lot. The post war period showed this in the surest fashion. When there is no where else to go to make money, a 90% tax rate is acceptable. The raw truth is that we're not the only game in town anymore, and the shipping of various things overseas (jobs, production, entire companies) is a reality we have to contend with now. As much as I want all those things listed and see the truth in his reasoning for why they will work, I just think that is a huuuuge dice roll to make. In 1950, I'd say fuck it, go all in. Now, there are just too many other markets available to start agitating our resident parasites that also happen to keep us in our tedious position as number #1
The myth is that businesses will flee the country if they aren't coddled. We can raise taxes, strengthen regulations, support unions and all those other "socialist" activities that free-market activists swear will drive businesses away without hurting our economy. Both history and current events demonstrate that companies that do this will be in the extreme minority and will be more than offset by the benefits from such policies. Economies are driven by both supply and demand and right now demand is severely stifled. McDonalds isn't going to pick up their ball and take it home because we won't play by its rules. They'll adapt just like the twenty-two other times the allegedly economy-killing minimum wage was raised.
@Orestes910 technology is not the same as food. Technology is made by robots and once they moved labor to China for cheaper wages the price of things in technology went down. A 50 inch TV set made in the USA in the 1980s will cost more than one made in China today. Food is grown by farmers on farms and then sold to places like McDonald's it is based on the cost of gas to harvest it and ship it. They add in costs to cover the salaries of the people at McDonald's and the utilities, etc.
A TV set is made in a factory in China and then shipped to the USA, people in China don't earn $15/hr or even $5/hr they earn pennies on the dollar to work in a factory for 18 hours a day 6 days a week. So comparing a TV set to a Big Mac is an apples to oranges comparison. If you paid the Chinese workers $15/hr then the TV set would cost a lot more to sell.
Myths? What a load of bullshit.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/10/seeking-lower-taxes-companies-flee-the-u-s/
Tell me, who wants to work when 100% of his income is taken away and he's an outright slave? That's right, no one. Now tell me, who wants to have 50% of his income taken away? That's right. NO ONE. We pay taxes because otherwise we go to jail. (Want to help The Poor®? -You could do that voluntarily too!)
Now if you can choose between having ~40% of your profits taken away, and wasting lots of money on "compliance" and having say, ~15% of your profits taken away and not having to deal with bullshit regulations.. which option would any sane person choose?
And to support your argument you link to a propaganda site. Thank you for your contribution, but I have no interest in arguing your religious beliefs.
Another load of bullshit. It's not a propaganda site just because you declare it one. Surely you must understand that much, at least?
Look, you can actually check if the US has super high corporate taxes or not. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to take the article's word for it. I have read that they actually do tax worldwide profits too, which is just fucking insane, and onerous. The US has shitloads of regulations too.
Considering that kind of stuff was what the article brought up as the reasons for why companies are leaving the US, it's obvious that it's not a propaganda article, but one that describes reality instead. In other words, you, Sir, are either full of shit or a complete idiot.