Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AP fact checks liberal claims about their wealth envy
- Thread starter Liberty
- Start date
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #122
how much of the wealth do they control?
Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
How fucking stupid can you possible be?I just posted a link.
You guys pretend small business owners are who these taxes will hit.
Most are well below the numbers
You actually think a business owner pulling in a million a year is some big business owner running a conglomerate, and should have half his/her personal income taken away, and it will not have a huge effect on future investment and growth?
Unbelievable how naive idiots like you truly are.
BTW, when was the last time you wrote a check to Uncle Sam, TDM?
Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
The reason investors are sitting on their cash is because consumers aren't buying goods and services enough to justify the investment in producing more goods and services. There's no point in doing that if you know you won't be able to sell what you produce, that's just money lost. It has nothing to do with confidence (except consumer confidence), regulations, or top-bracket individual or corporate taxes.
We've actually been in this bind with a disguise in place for decades. Beginning in 1981 (well, actually in 1977 but although Carter made things worse the changes accelerated under Reagan) we have seen a change in government policy from union-friendly to union-unfriendly, and from discouraging to encouraging the accumulation of personal wealth, and from steering investments into areas that create jobs to encouraging investments into areas that don't. On top of which, since Reagan we've enacted free-trade agreements (mostly under his successors not Reagan himself, I think) that have encouraged our manufacturers to move manufacturing jobs overseas to take advantage of dirt-cheap third-world labor. The net effect of all this has been a stagnation or decline of real wages, and a HUGE decline in the ratio of real wages to productivity.
That's not just unfair, it's economically disastrous. Wages paid to our workers are what keeps the economy going. They buy from those wages the goods and services that they have to if business is to remain profitable. Increasingly, they have not been able to do that. This was a depression waiting to happen.
In the 1990s, the banking industry put off the problem for a while by pushing consumer credit out the door in sufficient amounts to make up for the shortfall in wages. Consumers went heavily into debt. Then when the financial shell-games fell apart, the entire financial system went into retreat and tightened consumer credit, at the same time as consumers got responsible about their borrowing. What we see now is a more realistic result of the decline in real wages.
If we want to reverse this, we need to get real wages UP. And I mean WAY up. How far? Well, let's take a look at the key variable, the ratio between real wages and productivity.
Wages in America: The Rich Get Richer
In 1979 (constant 2001 dollars here) was $15.91 per hour. Productivity index that year (this doesn't have to be a real figure because we're comparing years) was 82.2. That gives us a wage/productivity ratio of 0.19. In 2001, real wages had effectively not risen at all (they did rise briefly but not much during the 1990s) and so we can still use that $15.91 figure, but the productivity index had risen to 120, so the wage/productivity ratio had fallen to 0.13.
In order to get us back to 1979 balance (which was in fact not all that great), we would need to raise wages to an average of $22.80 per hour, or an increase of 69%. We really should raise them further so as to increase buying power to a safe range. And of course, that doesn't include any further productivity gains -- without accompanying wage increases -- since 2001.
From a supply-side perspective, of course, a low wage-to-productivity ratio is a good thing. This is just one more point where supply-side economics is dead wrong.
We've actually been in this bind with a disguise in place for decades. Beginning in 1981 (well, actually in 1977 but although Carter made things worse the changes accelerated under Reagan) we have seen a change in government policy from union-friendly to union-unfriendly, and from discouraging to encouraging the accumulation of personal wealth, and from steering investments into areas that create jobs to encouraging investments into areas that don't. On top of which, since Reagan we've enacted free-trade agreements (mostly under his successors not Reagan himself, I think) that have encouraged our manufacturers to move manufacturing jobs overseas to take advantage of dirt-cheap third-world labor. The net effect of all this has been a stagnation or decline of real wages, and a HUGE decline in the ratio of real wages to productivity.
That's not just unfair, it's economically disastrous. Wages paid to our workers are what keeps the economy going. They buy from those wages the goods and services that they have to if business is to remain profitable. Increasingly, they have not been able to do that. This was a depression waiting to happen.
In the 1990s, the banking industry put off the problem for a while by pushing consumer credit out the door in sufficient amounts to make up for the shortfall in wages. Consumers went heavily into debt. Then when the financial shell-games fell apart, the entire financial system went into retreat and tightened consumer credit, at the same time as consumers got responsible about their borrowing. What we see now is a more realistic result of the decline in real wages.
If we want to reverse this, we need to get real wages UP. And I mean WAY up. How far? Well, let's take a look at the key variable, the ratio between real wages and productivity.
Wages in America: The Rich Get Richer
In 1979 (constant 2001 dollars here) was $15.91 per hour. Productivity index that year (this doesn't have to be a real figure because we're comparing years) was 82.2. That gives us a wage/productivity ratio of 0.19. In 2001, real wages had effectively not risen at all (they did rise briefly but not much during the 1990s) and so we can still use that $15.91 figure, but the productivity index had risen to 120, so the wage/productivity ratio had fallen to 0.13.
In order to get us back to 1979 balance (which was in fact not all that great), we would need to raise wages to an average of $22.80 per hour, or an increase of 69%. We really should raise them further so as to increase buying power to a safe range. And of course, that doesn't include any further productivity gains -- without accompanying wage increases -- since 2001.
From a supply-side perspective, of course, a low wage-to-productivity ratio is a good thing. This is just one more point where supply-side economics is dead wrong.
Brainwashed twits!!READ MY SIGNATURE TOO
Read your sig? Really? Are you a narcissist as well?
Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
Their wealth is not YOUR wealth, numbnuts......You didn't earn it.how much of the wealth do they control?
My wealth is not YOUR wealth, carpetbagger.....You didn't earn it.
Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
Shit, If I see his post runs more than a sentence, I completely ignore it. So, why in the hell would I waste time reading the dirty hippies sig line?Read your sig? Really? Are you a narcissist as well?
Dead on. Typical Statist...hasn't learned the lesson that all wealth belongs to those that earned it.Their wealth is not YOUR wealth, numbnuts......You didn't earn it.how much of the wealth do they control?
My wealth is not YOUR wealth, carpetbagger.....You didn't earn it.
Never learned the premise of the formation of this Republic...
Individual Liberty...
Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happiness...
So simple that it eludes them.
Just trying to educate the brainwashed morons...used to be a teacher...
Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
You were a teacher?Just trying to educate the brainwashed morons...used to be a teacher...
No wonder there's so many stupid fuckin' liberal idiots runnin' around.
TDM must have been your star student, eh?
The Democrats are trying to Califonize America!
Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
Yep!The Democrats are trying to Califonize America!
You WANT a banana republic?
You were a teacher?Just trying to educate the brainwashed morons...used to be a teacher...
No wonder there's so many stupid fuckin' liberal idiots runnin' around.
TDM must have been your star student, eh?
You sure must because Obama mirrors Hugo Chavez in EGO and actions and YOU support the LIAR.You WANT a banana republic?
California has gone off the tracks- way too many illegals....you can thank pubs blocking a good work ID card after Reagan's amnesty- duped again and always. D'OH!!
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #138
You wait and see, Cali will be fine
NO. Reagan was lied to by the Democrats. And it hasn't changed.California has gone off the tracks- way too many illegals....you can thank pubs blocking a good work ID card after Reagan's amnesty- duped again and always. D'OH!!
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #140
Cali is going to be kicking ass in a couple of years
Similar threads
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 691
- Replies
- 275
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 181
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 396
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 444
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 10
- Replies
- 84
- Views
- 272
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8073
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-