Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, 1% Went to Wages

[uscitizen]

Where the hell do you think the money to pay wages comes from, you fucking dunce?

I believe the point of this post is that "trickle down economics"
is a load of B.S.!!

Yep it is suck up economics, in more ways than one.

 

[jgarden]

“I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it ...”
(Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, 11/22/2010)

“The rich are always going to say that, you know, ‘Just give us more money, and we’ll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.’ But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”
(Warren Buffett, 3rd richest man in the world, 11/22/2010)

http://veracitystew.com/2010/11/22/...own-economics-failed-more-taxes-for-the-rich/

Perhaps Buffett is overestimating the intelligence of the many Americans.

Deep thinkers like "Oddball," "CrusaderFrank," "boedicca," and "whitehall," just don't get it - and never will!

 

[FactFinder]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, 1% Went to Wages

and...then wonder why the economy is stuck. Duh!

 

[uscitizen]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, 1% Went to Wages

and...then wonder why the economy is stuck. Duh!

Well Duhh we ARE a consumer spending based economy.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Lots of people in this thread claiming that all the money going to corporations is a good thing. While it's lovely to see such obsequious forelock-tugging from the peasantry the very same people who are bowing and scraping to the guys looting the country should understand that all the money going to a handful of corporations and the top 1% of earners is actually a bad thing and is part of a trend of increasing income inequality that we've seen over the past thirty years. In previous economic recoveries the benefits of the recovery were much more widely shared. Here are the numbers :

1975 I – 1976 II
Corporate Profits Share of Growth in National Income: 32%
Aggregate Wage and Salary Share of Growth in National Income: 38%

1982 IV – 1984 II
Corporate Profits Share of Growth in National Income: 28%
Aggregate Wage and Salary Share of Growth in National Income: 25%

1991 I – 1992 III
Corporate Profits Share of Growth in National Income: -1%
Aggregate Wage and Salary Share of Growth in National Income: 50%

2001 IV – 2003 II
Corporate Profits Share of Growth in National Income: 53%
Aggregate Wage and Salary Share of Growth in National Income: 15%


compare that to 88 and 1. Even back in the Reagan years we got equitable distribution of wealth. And we need the distribution to be equitable because if it isn't then the bottom 99% of the country don't have any money to spend and the economy (70% of which is consumer spending) goes nowhere for the forseeable future.

So what we actually need here is a massive redistribution of wealth downwards to make up for the massive upward redistribution we've had over the past thirty years.

 

[boedicca]

The Moonbats, unsurprisingly, miss the point.

Wages are affected by Supply and Demand, just like any other good or service. When the government damages the conditions for economic growth so that there is an Excess Supply of Labor, Wages are not going to increase.

You want higher wages, free up the economy to grow so that there is more demand for labor...instead of spending $4.8M per job to create a paltry 3.5K of Green Jobs.

 

[FactFinder]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, 1% Went to Wages

and...then wonder why the economy is stuck. Duh!

Well Duhh we ARE a consumer spending based economy.

They want the consumer to spend yet they don't wnat to pay them a wage that enables them to. then they want to gouge the consumer on necessities to pay their hedge fund obligations and wonder why they have no discretionary income. What a bunch of blind greedy mongers they are. Glad I don't depend on such scum.

 

[boedicca]

since 2009, 88 percent of income growth went to corporate profits, 1% went to wages

and...then wonder why the economy is stuck. Duh!

well duhh we are a consumer spending based economy.

they want the consumer to spend yet they don't wnat to pay them a wage that enables them to. Then they want to gouge the consumer on necessities to pay their hedge fund obligations and wonder why they have no discretionary income. What a bunch of blind greedy mongers they are. Glad i don't depend on such scum.

boooo!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it ...”
(Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, 11/22/2010)

“The rich are always going to say that, you know, ‘Just give us more money, and we’ll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.’ But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”
(Warren Buffett, 3rd richest man in the world, 11/22/2010)

Warren Buffett: Trickle-Down Economics Failed; More Taxes For The Rich | Veracity Stew

Perhaps Buffett is overestimating the intelligence of the many Americans.

Deep thinkers like "Oddball," "CrusaderFrank," "boedicca," and "whitehall," just don't get it - and never will!

There's nothing stopping Buffett from paying more in taxes. Nothing! Just shut the fuck up and write the check

 

[Raoul_Duke]

The Moonbats, unsurprisingly, miss the point.

Wages are affected by Supply and Demand, just like any other good or service. When the government damages the conditions for economic growth so that there is an Excess Supply of Labor, Wages are not going to increase.

You want higher wages, free up the economy to grow so that there is more demand for labor...instead of spending $4.8M per job to create a paltry 3.5K of Green Jobs.

Since 1980 America has steadily deregulated the economy, "freed it up" to set the markets free. This reached its current apex in the early 2000s under george bush who went on a deregulation binge especially with the financial industry. So markets had never been freer in the first decade of this century than they'd been since the 1920s. And exactly what happened? Bush got the worst job growth of any president. Also, too. Since we started deregulating corporations have foun d less and less demand to cater to and invest to meet. They're steadily accumulated money and are sitting on uninvested trillions of dollars. This accumulation of cash continued all through the GW Bush years, the period when markets have never been freer. So, bearing this in mind, why wasn't there massive job growth in the 2000s when markets had never been freer in living memory?

 

[FactFinder]

well duhh we are a consumer spending based economy.

they want the consumer to spend yet they don't wnat to pay them a wage that enables them to. Then they want to gouge the consumer on necessities to pay their hedge fund obligations and wonder why they have no discretionary income. What a bunch of blind greedy mongers they are. Glad i don't depend on such scum.

boooo!!!!

Thoughtful response.

 

[jgarden]

The Moonbats, unsurprisingly, miss the point.

Wages are affected by Supply and Demand, just like any other good or service. When the government damages the conditions for economic growth so that there is an Excess Supply of Labor, Wages are not going to increase.

You want higher wages, free up the economy to grow so that there is more demand for labor...instead of spending $4.8M per job to create a paltry 3.5K of Green Jobs.

1. The government "damaged the conditions for economic growth" when successive Republican administrations (Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush) gave tax cuts to multinational corporations and then stood by and watched them use the money to export millions of middle class and manufacturing jobs offshore.

2. To make matters worse, the "tax cuts" were financed with borrowed money which resulted in massive increases to the national debt. It was always assumed that "tax cuts" would create jobs, but there was never any accountability to ensure that the money was actually being used for that purpose.

3. Technology and automation a results in more and more "widgets" being produced by fewer and fewer people. The problem arrises when millions of unemployeed "widget" makers are no longer consumers. Governments also allowed predatory corporations (General Electric, Merck, Monsanto, Chiquita, etc) buy/sell companies for the sole purpose of acquiring the surpluses of employee pension plans.

4. If and when the economy does improve, what guarantee is there that those middle class/manufacturing jobs will ever return. The net result could be that even with full employment, the standard of living of the average American will stagnate or continue to decline.

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Mergers-Cut-Worker-Benefits.htm

 

[FactFinder]

The Moonbats, unsurprisingly, miss the point.

Wages are affected by Supply and Demand, just like any other good or service. When the government damages the conditions for economic growth so that there is an Excess Supply of Labor, Wages are not going to increase.

You want higher wages, free up the economy to grow so that there is more demand for labor...instead of spending $4.8M per job to create a paltry 3.5K of Green Jobs.

1. The government "damaged the conditions for economic growth" when successive Republican administrations (Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush) gave tax cuts to multinational corporations and then stood by and watched them use the money to export millions of middle class and manufacturing jobs offshore. They also allowed predator practices where business were bought using junk bonds for the sole purpose of acquiring the surpluses of employee pension plans.

2. To make matters worse, the "tax cuts" were financed with borrowed money which resulted in massive increases to the national debt. It was always assumed that "tax cuts" would create jobs, but there was never any accountability to ensure that the money was actually being used for that purpose.

3. Technology and automation a results in more and more "widgets" being produced by fewer and fewer people. The problem arrises when millions of unemployeed "widget" makers are no longer consumers.

4. If and when the economy does improve, what guarantee is there that those middle class/manufacturing jobs will ever return. The net result could be that even with full employment, the standard of living of the average American could continue to decline.

Trickle down. Guess those rain gutters need the clogs cleared from them.

 

[oreo]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:
“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”
<more>

Corporate profits will grow--when employees are LAID OFF. In fact--that is the only reason that the stock market went up--because companies across the nation laid off employees--decreasing costs--adding more to bottom lines.

Now investors are looking for GROWTH in companies which they are not seeing. Therefore any profits will be flat in comparison to prior quarters--which will send the stock market down.

Many economists expect that we are headed for a double-dip recession--meaning more lay-offs.

What is lacking in this economy is DEMAND for goods and services. With demand--we will see growth--requiring corporations to hire more. The only way to get this growth is more expendable cash in Americans pockets to evenly distribute through-out the economy--and for consumer confidence to RISE.

Corporations sitting on cash will not risk it to invest or grow--with the MOST anti business administration in our history. They have no idea what Obamacare will cost--they do not know what their tax rate will be from one year to the next--and if they cannot see into the future--they will continue to sit on cash.

Each and every day Obama is out there threatening them with over-regulation--higher taxes--and Obamacare. Our Harvard graduate--most intellectual--community organizer--and now amateur golfer is also an economic MORON.

 

[jgarden]

It appears that "oreo's" definition of "an economic MORON" is a president who's no prepared to take "his marching orders" from the CEO's of the nation's corporations.

 

[oreo]

It appears that "oreo's" definition of "an economic MORON" is a president who's no prepared to take "his marching orders" from the CEO's of the nation's corporations.

Here is a DEMOCRAT CEO--and one who voted for OBAMA to explain it too you a little better.

&#8220;I&#8217;m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don&#8217;t want to say that. They&#8217;ll say, &#8216;Oh God, don&#8217;t be attacking Obama.&#8217; Well, this is Obama&#8217;s deal, and it&#8217;s Obama that&#8217;s responsible for this fear in America.&#8221;

&#8220;The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe &#8216;we ought to do something to businesses that don&#8217;t invest or hold too much money.&#8217; We haven&#8217;t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.&#8221;

&#8220;Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he&#8217;s gone, everybody&#8217;s going to be sitting on their thumbs.&#8221;

Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? | BNET

YOU voted for it--YOU got it!

 

[FactFinder]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:
“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”
<more>

Corporate profits will grow--when employees are LAID OFF. In fact--that is the only reason that the stock market went up--because companies across the nation laid off employees--decreasing costs--adding more to bottom lines.

Now investors are looking for GROWTH in companies which they are not seeing. Therefore any profits will be flat in comparison to prior quarters--which will send the stock market down.

Many economists expect that we are headed for a double-dip recession--meaning more lay-offs.

What is lacking in this economy is DEMAND for goods and services. With demand--we will see growth--requiring corporations to hire more. The only way to get this growth is more expendable cash in Americans pockets to evenly distribute through-out the economy--and for consumer confidence to RISE.

Corporations sitting on cash will not risk it to invest or grow--with the MOST anti business administration in our history. They have no idea what Obamacare will cost--they do not know what their tax rate will be from one year to the next--and if they cannot see into the future--they will continue to sit on cash.

Each and every day Obama is out there threatening them with over-regulation--higher taxes--and Obamacare. Our Harvard graduate--most intellectual--community organizer--and now amateur golfer is also an economic MORON.

View attachment 15205

In other words they are currently brain dead morons who have lost any sense of creativity leaving the only means of profit is to cut the neighbors throat. Bad philosophy, bad karma, a zero sum end game.

 

[oreo]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:
&#8220;Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. &#8230;The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.&#8221;
<more>

Corporate profits will grow--when employees are LAID OFF. In fact--that is the only reason that the stock market went up--because companies across the nation laid off employees--decreasing costs--adding more to bottom lines.

Now investors are looking for GROWTH in companies which they are not seeing. Therefore any profits will be flat in comparison to prior quarters--which will send the stock market down.

Many economists expect that we are headed for a double-dip recession--meaning more lay-offs.

What is lacking in this economy is DEMAND for goods and services. With demand--we will see growth--requiring corporations to hire more. The only way to get this growth is more expendable cash in Americans pockets to evenly distribute through-out the economy--and for consumer confidence to RISE.

Corporations sitting on cash will not risk it to invest or grow--with the MOST anti business administration in our history. They have no idea what Obamacare will cost--they do not know what their tax rate will be from one year to the next--and if they cannot see into the future--they will continue to sit on cash.

Each and every day Obama is out there threatening them with over-regulation--higher taxes--and Obamacare. Our Harvard graduate--most intellectual--community organizer--and now amateur golfer is also an economic MORON.

View attachment 15205

In other words they are currently brain dead morons who have lost any sense of creativity leaving the only means of profit is to cut the neighbors throat. Bad philosophy, bad karma, a zero sum end game.

Corporations in this country are in for the PROFIT. They're not doing for their HEALTH. Without PROFIT--like Solyndro--they go BANKRUPT--cease to exist. Get over it. Business has tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave--and that threat is Barack Obama.

 

[rdean]

Gee. If the Feds taxed every penny of this increase in profits generated between Q2-2009 and Q4-2010, that $464B would cover about three months of the Obama Deficits.

Yea, 10 trillion in Bush and Republican deficits, then they hand it off to Obama and say, OK, Now it's your. What do you expect from people who yell, "Let him die"?

Reminds me of a track star thinking he's being passed a baton, then he looks at his hand and realizes he's been passed a big turd. A really, REALLY BIG turd. He doesn't want to drop it or he'll lose the race. But the teammate who handed it to him told him he wanted him to "fail". See, the guy who passed the turn didn't like having a black teammate.

 

[oreo]

Gee. If the Feds taxed every penny of this increase in profits generated between Q2-2009 and Q4-2010, that $464B would cover about three months of the Obama Deficits.

Yea, 10 trillion in Bush and Republican deficits, then they hand it off to Obama and say, OK, Now it's your. What do you expect from people who yell, "Let him die"?

Reminds me of a track star thinking he's being passed a baton, then he looks at his hand and realizes he's been passed a big turd. A really, REALLY BIG turd. He doesn't want to drop it or he'll lose the race. But the teammate who handed it to him told him he wanted him to "fail". See, the guy who passed the turn didn't like having a black teammate.

B.S.--Obama bought & paid for this mess when he borrowed and spent 787 BILLION tax payer dollars--while promising it would create MILLIONS of private sector jobs and keep unemployment from rising over 8.2%. IT FLOPPED. Now we have the Solyndro scandle--a company that tried to PRESSURE the Bush administration into loaning 535 MILLION tax payer dollars but was turned down because the anaylists said this company was not stable--YOUR guy Obama loaned them the money anyway-KNOWING that this company was risky-which did create some jobs at a cost of 5.4 MILLION PER JOB CREATED--that just claimed bankruptcy.

Don't you tell me that Obama doesn't have anything to do with this. OBAMA took this job--it's his responsiblity to handle problems responsibly--and NOT MAKE IT WORSE. And that is exactly what he has done. This Harvard graduate--community organizer walked into office knowing the problems--and if he didn't know how to handle it--he should have resigned.