The End of Employees

[itfitzme]

Why is using contractors bad? I have been working in the utility construction industry for 20+ years (with a few breaks). That has been the standard for many, many companies. When Comcast or Verizon wants to upgrade their systems, do you think they buy lots of bigger bucket trucks and equipment? Do you think they hire hundreds of new employees for a 2 or 3 year project? No. They call in a contractor who gets paid production. Meaning they get paid for what they build, not for how many hours they worked. When the project is finished, Comcast or Verizon or whomever is not left with lots of employees they can't use and tons of equipment they have to store or auction off. And the contractors move on to other projects in other places.

Nothing wrong. We’re moving from vertical integration to lateral specialist. So it’s a different reality. The upshot is that whereas in the past, the labor and management were in the same boat. Now it’s two (or more) boats and there is little concern for the other crew

That is poignant. But then you say "The upshot"?

Still, it seems insightful.

So, expand on that, the "and there is little concern for the other crew". In the efficiency of production and distribution of product, there are other efficiencies that has devolved. What have we lost in the process? Bargaining power in the labor market? The efficiency of group health care coverage?

Large companies, as they parse down to just the things that they get the greatest return for, push less efficient processes off on suppliers and customers. The only example I can think of is printing costs. Coupons were silly for a while. Consumer product companies offered coupons but you had to print them out on a computer to use them? Grocery stores have picked that up by printing coupons at checkout. Apps have taken over some of it. Pizza still has fliers, but it's more for advertising then anything. You don't really need the piece of paper to get the discount.

I know there is more there, in the "more) boats and there is little concern for the other crew".

 

[itfitzme]

You're right.

However what happens when that employee doesn't make the employer money?

What happens when an employees' productivity is BELOW a livable wage?

That's not the point. We're supposed to be turning businesses into welfare distribution centers.

So now employees are welfare recipients? You're making Putin proud.

They are when the government forces their pay to be higher than the value of their work.

Employees make employers all of their money, so what's the value of the employee?

Well, let's figure that one out.

A business doesn't always succeed. There's massive risk involved. If a company is successful it will probably be due to the ideas of the boss, rather than just the workers.

Take a McDonald's worker. How much are they worth?

Say 10 people work at a McDonald's branch. One of them is the owner of the franchise. One is a lower boss and the other 8 are lackies.

Is a lacky worth 1/10th of all the takings?

Well, the owner of the franchise and the boss are probably working longer hours. And they're the ones making it all happen.

Then you have the fact that McDonald's spends loads on advertising. So, take out that money.

Then you have the risk for the owner of the franchise. They have put their own money into it. They could lose all their own money, they could potentially gain money.

Without people being encouraged to take risks, nothing happens. The lackies aren't taking those risks. If the business fails, they go to another job.

So how much is a lacky worth?

I believe you are confusing prices with value. Prices, including wages in the labor market, are a result of a number of things. One of those is market leverage. There are others. Markets that have higher market leverage (the general difference in the slopes of the supply and demand curves), can extract higher prices then is warranted from the actual economic value.

 

[candycorn]

Why is using contractors bad? I have been working in the utility construction industry for 20+ years (with a few breaks). That has been the standard for many, many companies. When Comcast or Verizon wants to upgrade their systems, do you think they buy lots of bigger bucket trucks and equipment? Do you think they hire hundreds of new employees for a 2 or 3 year project? No. They call in a contractor who gets paid production. Meaning they get paid for what they build, not for how many hours they worked. When the project is finished, Comcast or Verizon or whomever is not left with lots of employees they can't use and tons of equipment they have to store or auction off. And the contractors move on to other projects in other places.

Nothing wrong. We’re moving from vertical integration to lateral specialist. So it’s a different reality. The upshot is that whereas in the past, the labor and management were in the same boat. Now it’s two (or more) boats and there is little concern for the other crew

That is poignant. But then you say "The upshot"?

Still, it seems insightful.

So, expand on that, the "and there is little concern for the other crew". In the efficiency of production and distribution of product, there are other efficiencies that has devolved. What have we lost in the process? Bargaining power in the labor market? The efficiency of group health care coverage?

Large companies, as they parse down to just the things that they get the greatest return for, push less efficient processes off on suppliers and customers. The only example I can think of is printing costs. Coupons were silly for a while. Consumer product companies offered coupons but you had to print them out on a computer to use them? Grocery stores have picked that up by printing coupons at checkout. Apps have taken over some of it. Pizza still has fliers, but it's more for advertising then anything. You don't really need the piece of paper to get the discount.

I know there is more there, in the "more) boats and there is little concern for the other crew".

What you have lost is point of production quality control. You send work out to ABC company per your contract signed in 2016 and you get your product back with whatever value was added. What you don't know is that ABC is having internal strife and their processes have suffered. So your critical path is to send it out on the 15th, get it back on the 19th and ship on the 20th. You have no control over what ABC is doing. You have to rely on them and their internal quality controls.

I'll give you an example. I worked briefly at a place that made tools that were used in optical surgeries. I wasn't on the assembly side; I was in logistics on the other side of the building. Anyway, the assemblers had to put this tube into this mechanism. We were told of an episode in quality control... If you're looking at your keyboard, the mechanism would be where the "L" key is and the tube would be about the length to the "S" key. The tube had two internal chambers; one for irrigation (saline) and one for air (oxygen). The tube was blue on one side, white on the other to show the assembler how to lay the tube into the machine that sealed the mechanism around the tube. One day, one of the assemblers flipped the tube so that when the surgeon used it, the chamber that was supposed to be carrying air carried water and air hose carried water. The result? The patient's eye exploded. I told you all that to tell you this. The company I worked for (I won't say who) used a temp agency to staff it's plant (I won't say which one). These people--the staffers--came and went quite often. You'd ask "what happened to ________" and her replacement would say "I'm the new _______". They sacrificed quality control for expediency.

Additionally, in this day and age of the Internet and everyone with a phone being a reporter, workers often find out items about their company in the news media before their bosses had a chance to tell them. When Sears finally goes belly up, many (if not most) of their employees will find out about it on their phones before their bosses tell them. If you're working for ABC company and you hear that ABC's biggest customer has decided to ink a deal with your competitor, you're retooling your resume; ABC is going D-O-W-N. What often happens is that ABC will have the contract for 6 weeks to 2 months before the switch over happens. What type of quality do you think ABC is producing for those six to 8 weeks? The incentive to please the customer who has stated that they are leaving you is long gone. I'm sure the management at ABC is still committed to excellence but the employees who know their company is going to be in serious trouble are going to start looking out for themselves. That is just reality.

Finally, what is lost by serial out-sourcers is that if you work for part of the company that is still vertically integrated, surely you understand that your division is next. In the future, if you aren't seeing it now--I think there is a trend out there--loyalty will be as rare as the milkman. Companies are not loyal to their employees so there will be no loyalty going the other way. Nor should there be. This is why you get treated great at Chick Fil A (usually) and you essentially get passive resistance from the wait staff when you try to eat at their competitors.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's not the point. We're supposed to be turning businesses into welfare distribution centers.

So now employees are welfare recipients? You're making Putin proud.

They are when the government forces their pay to be higher than the value of their work.

Employees make employers all of their money, so what's the value of the employee?

Well, let's figure that one out.

A business doesn't always succeed. There's massive risk involved. If a company is successful it will probably be due to the ideas of the boss, rather than just the workers.

Take a McDonald's worker. How much are they worth?

Say 10 people work at a McDonald's branch. One of them is the owner of the franchise. One is a lower boss and the other 8 are lackies.

Is a lacky worth 1/10th of all the takings?

Well, the owner of the franchise and the boss are probably working longer hours. And they're the ones making it all happen.

Then you have the fact that McDonald's spends loads on advertising. So, take out that money.

Then you have the risk for the owner of the franchise. They have put their own money into it. They could lose all their own money, they could potentially gain money.

Without people being encouraged to take risks, nothing happens. The lackies aren't taking those risks. If the business fails, they go to another job.

So how much is a lacky worth?

I believe you are confusing prices with value. Prices, including wages in the labor market, are a result of a number of things. One of those is market leverage. There are others. Markets that have higher market leverage (the general difference in the slopes of the supply and demand curves), can extract higher prices then is warranted from the actual economic value.

Well, a person't value is based on how much they can make.

 

[OnePercenter]

How is returning tax money to the workers "moronic?"

You're not cutting individual rates in your "plan".
Handing 100% of employee expenses to corporations is going to hand
corporations trillions.

For a guy who bitches about corporations, that's especially moronic.

Why would I cut individual tax rates, a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

I bitch about corporate welfare that does nothing to promote the economy.

Why would I cut individual tax rates

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

Why?

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Why?

Pay increase.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Your "plan" didn't reduce individual rates.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.​

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

How much larger?

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.

No, corporate tax will be 30% of revenues.

 

[OnePercenter]

Plan outlined in OP reminds me a bit of Nixon's wage and price controls. I don't recall them being either popular or effective, but that was quite awhile ago.

Not even close to Nixon's. My plan increases profit for business, wages for employees, and consumer spending. My plan reduces unemployment to zero. My plan makes automation a financial disadvantage. My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

Handing corporations trillions in handouts is your plan to end corporate welfare? DERP!

Read the plan.

 

[OnePercenter]

"My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation."

That is not a realistic concept, as in not part of reality. It's not simply impractical. It is no more real then expecting to eliminate gravity. Inflation is a necessary and required part of the way the economy functions. It has to be held low, but not zero. The other option in deflation. To put it simply, deflation is very bad. During the Great Recession, the rate of inflation fell to -3%. This was because people stopped buying things. Prices collapsed as did employment and the economy.

It is impossible to hold the percentage change in the CPI, or any measure of inflation, to zero. On a quarter to quarter basis, the rate of inflation varies from as much as -0.8% to as much as 1.7%. The average yearly inflation for the last eight years was 1.9%. In 2015, the rate was 0.4%. For 2017 it was 2.2%. These rates are actually quite remarkable considering that in the decades of the 1970 and 1980, the yearly inflation rate hit 12.64% and averaged about 6% per year for the entire 20 year period.

The Federal Reserve has just three goals, maximize sustainable employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long term interest rates. These three are intimately connected. They have managed to hold inflation to 2.1%, 1.8%, 0.41% and 1.2% for the last four years. There is no plan that is going to do better. That is as close to zero as it's gonna get. Attempting to make it zero would be a disaster. Employment would suffer. It wouldn't be maximized. It would fall to less than maximum. And there would be an all to real risk of it collapsing as it did during the Great Recession.

The problem isn't inflation. The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the lack of consumer savings. And while it may seem like no inflation would result in the ability for the average person to save, it wouldn't.

Inflation is caused by greed. High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why is using contractors bad? I have been working in the utility construction industry for 20+ years (with a few breaks). That has been the standard for many, many companies. When Comcast or Verizon wants to upgrade their systems, do you think they buy lots of bigger bucket trucks and equipment? Do you think they hire hundreds of new employees for a 2 or 3 year project? No. They call in a contractor who gets paid production. Meaning they get paid for what they build, not for how many hours they worked. When the project is finished, Comcast or Verizon or whomever is not left with lots of employees they can't use and tons of equipment they have to store or auction off. And the contractors move on to other projects in other places.

Walmart can't run it's own distribution center?

Specialization is one of the most fundamental behaviors in economics. They could, but another company that specializes in distribution can do it better. The flip side question would be, "Can't the distribution company sell at retail stores?" And they would, if they could do that better than Walmart.

It's a matter of efficiency. The single greatest cause of improvement in the standard of living is from efficiency.

How is driving down wages an improvement in the standard of living?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're not cutting individual rates in your "plan".
Handing 100% of employee expenses to corporations is going to hand
corporations trillions.

For a guy who bitches about corporations, that's especially moronic.

Why would I cut individual tax rates, a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

I bitch about corporate welfare that does nothing to promote the economy.

Why would I cut individual tax rates

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

Why?

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Why?

Pay increase.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Your "plan" didn't reduce individual rates.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.​

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

How much larger?

Here's employee expenses, you tell me.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative

No, corporate tax will be 30% of revenues.​

And yet, you're rebating them trillions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plan outlined in OP reminds me a bit of Nixon's wage and price controls. I don't recall them being either popular or effective, but that was quite awhile ago.

Not even close to Nixon's. My plan increases profit for business, wages for employees, and consumer spending. My plan reduces unemployment to zero. My plan makes automation a financial disadvantage. My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

Handing corporations trillions in handouts is your plan to end corporate welfare? DERP!

Read the plan.

I've read and mocked your "plan" multiple times.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation."

That is not a realistic concept, as in not part of reality. It's not simply impractical. It is no more real then expecting to eliminate gravity. Inflation is a necessary and required part of the way the economy functions. It has to be held low, but not zero. The other option in deflation. To put it simply, deflation is very bad. During the Great Recession, the rate of inflation fell to -3%. This was because people stopped buying things. Prices collapsed as did employment and the economy.

It is impossible to hold the percentage change in the CPI, or any measure of inflation, to zero. On a quarter to quarter basis, the rate of inflation varies from as much as -0.8% to as much as 1.7%. The average yearly inflation for the last eight years was 1.9%. In 2015, the rate was 0.4%. For 2017 it was 2.2%. These rates are actually quite remarkable considering that in the decades of the 1970 and 1980, the yearly inflation rate hit 12.64% and averaged about 6% per year for the entire 20 year period.

The Federal Reserve has just three goals, maximize sustainable employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long term interest rates. These three are intimately connected. They have managed to hold inflation to 2.1%, 1.8%, 0.41% and 1.2% for the last four years. There is no plan that is going to do better. That is as close to zero as it's gonna get. Attempting to make it zero would be a disaster. Employment would suffer. It wouldn't be maximized. It would fall to less than maximum. And there would be an all to real risk of it collapsing as it did during the Great Recession.

The problem isn't inflation. The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the lack of consumer savings. And while it may seem like no inflation would result in the ability for the average person to save, it wouldn't.

Inflation is caused by greed. High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

Inflation is caused by greed.

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon - Milton Friedman

High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

As opposed to any other point in human history when investors didn't want a higher return on profit.

DERP!

 

[OnePercenter]

Why would I cut individual tax rates, a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

I bitch about corporate welfare that does nothing to promote the economy.

Why would I cut individual tax rates

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

Why?

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Why?

Pay increase.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Your "plan" didn't reduce individual rates.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.​

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

How much larger?

Here's employee expenses, you tell me.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative

No, corporate tax will be 30% of revenues.​

And yet, you're rebating them trillions.

You state my plan is bad but you can't identify why, and when pushed, only provide half or less of you point.

I'm returning tax monies to the people.

 

[OnePercenter]

Plan outlined in OP reminds me a bit of Nixon's wage and price controls. I don't recall them being either popular or effective, but that was quite awhile ago.

Not even close to Nixon's. My plan increases profit for business, wages for employees, and consumer spending. My plan reduces unemployment to zero. My plan makes automation a financial disadvantage. My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

Handing corporations trillions in handouts is your plan to end corporate welfare? DERP!

Read the plan.

I've read and mocked your "plan" multiple times.

Without any evidence other than it goes against annihilating western culture.

 

[OnePercenter]

"My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation."

That is not a realistic concept, as in not part of reality. It's not simply impractical. It is no more real then expecting to eliminate gravity. Inflation is a necessary and required part of the way the economy functions. It has to be held low, but not zero. The other option in deflation. To put it simply, deflation is very bad. During the Great Recession, the rate of inflation fell to -3%. This was because people stopped buying things. Prices collapsed as did employment and the economy.

It is impossible to hold the percentage change in the CPI, or any measure of inflation, to zero. On a quarter to quarter basis, the rate of inflation varies from as much as -0.8% to as much as 1.7%. The average yearly inflation for the last eight years was 1.9%. In 2015, the rate was 0.4%. For 2017 it was 2.2%. These rates are actually quite remarkable considering that in the decades of the 1970 and 1980, the yearly inflation rate hit 12.64% and averaged about 6% per year for the entire 20 year period.

The Federal Reserve has just three goals, maximize sustainable employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long term interest rates. These three are intimately connected. They have managed to hold inflation to 2.1%, 1.8%, 0.41% and 1.2% for the last four years. There is no plan that is going to do better. That is as close to zero as it's gonna get. Attempting to make it zero would be a disaster. Employment would suffer. It wouldn't be maximized. It would fall to less than maximum. And there would be an all to real risk of it collapsing as it did during the Great Recession.

The problem isn't inflation. The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the lack of consumer savings. And while it may seem like no inflation would result in the ability for the average person to save, it wouldn't.

Inflation is caused by greed. High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

Inflation is caused by greed.

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon - Milton Friedman

High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

As opposed to any other point in human history when investors didn't want a higher return on profit.

DERP!

Inflation is bad. It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit.

In the 70's the ROI went from 12% to 50%, thus higher inflation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would I cut individual tax rates

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

Why?

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Why?

Pay increase.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Your "plan" didn't reduce individual rates.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.​

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

How much larger?

Here's employee expenses, you tell me.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative

No, corporate tax will be 30% of revenues.​

And yet, you're rebating them trillions.

You state my plan is bad but you can't identify why, and when pushed, only provide half or less of you point.

I'm returning tax monies to the people.

You state my plan is bad but you can't identify why

You think corporations are undertaxed, and your plan hands them trillions. DERP!

I'm returning tax monies to the people.

Yeah, the people who own corporations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation."

That is not a realistic concept, as in not part of reality. It's not simply impractical. It is no more real then expecting to eliminate gravity. Inflation is a necessary and required part of the way the economy functions. It has to be held low, but not zero. The other option in deflation. To put it simply, deflation is very bad. During the Great Recession, the rate of inflation fell to -3%. This was because people stopped buying things. Prices collapsed as did employment and the economy.

It is impossible to hold the percentage change in the CPI, or any measure of inflation, to zero. On a quarter to quarter basis, the rate of inflation varies from as much as -0.8% to as much as 1.7%. The average yearly inflation for the last eight years was 1.9%. In 2015, the rate was 0.4%. For 2017 it was 2.2%. These rates are actually quite remarkable considering that in the decades of the 1970 and 1980, the yearly inflation rate hit 12.64% and averaged about 6% per year for the entire 20 year period.

The Federal Reserve has just three goals, maximize sustainable employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long term interest rates. These three are intimately connected. They have managed to hold inflation to 2.1%, 1.8%, 0.41% and 1.2% for the last four years. There is no plan that is going to do better. That is as close to zero as it's gonna get. Attempting to make it zero would be a disaster. Employment would suffer. It wouldn't be maximized. It would fall to less than maximum. And there would be an all to real risk of it collapsing as it did during the Great Recession.

The problem isn't inflation. The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the lack of consumer savings. And while it may seem like no inflation would result in the ability for the average person to save, it wouldn't.

Inflation is caused by greed. High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

Inflation is caused by greed.

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon - Milton Friedman

High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

As opposed to any other point in human history when investors didn't want a higher return on profit.

DERP!

Inflation is bad. It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit.

In the 70's the ROI went from 12% to 50%, thus higher inflation.

Inflation is bad. It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit.

And retired people with bonds. And investors with bonds. And banks with bonds.

In the 70's the ROI went from 12% to 50%,

Link?

 

[OnePercenter]

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Why?

Pay increase.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Your "plan" didn't reduce individual rates.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.​

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

How much larger?

Here's employee expenses, you tell me.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative

No, corporate tax will be 30% of revenues.​

And yet, you're rebating them trillions.

You state my plan is bad but you can't identify why, and when pushed, only provide half or less of you point.

I'm returning tax monies to the people.

You state my plan is bad but you can't identify why

You think corporations are undertaxed, and your plan hands them trillions. DERP!

I'm returning tax monies to the people.

Yeah, the people who own corporations.

And again, put-up or shut-up.

 

[OnePercenter]

"My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation."

That is not a realistic concept, as in not part of reality. It's not simply impractical. It is no more real then expecting to eliminate gravity. Inflation is a necessary and required part of the way the economy functions. It has to be held low, but not zero. The other option in deflation. To put it simply, deflation is very bad. During the Great Recession, the rate of inflation fell to -3%. This was because people stopped buying things. Prices collapsed as did employment and the economy.

It is impossible to hold the percentage change in the CPI, or any measure of inflation, to zero. On a quarter to quarter basis, the rate of inflation varies from as much as -0.8% to as much as 1.7%. The average yearly inflation for the last eight years was 1.9%. In 2015, the rate was 0.4%. For 2017 it was 2.2%. These rates are actually quite remarkable considering that in the decades of the 1970 and 1980, the yearly inflation rate hit 12.64% and averaged about 6% per year for the entire 20 year period.

The Federal Reserve has just three goals, maximize sustainable employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long term interest rates. These three are intimately connected. They have managed to hold inflation to 2.1%, 1.8%, 0.41% and 1.2% for the last four years. There is no plan that is going to do better. That is as close to zero as it's gonna get. Attempting to make it zero would be a disaster. Employment would suffer. It wouldn't be maximized. It would fall to less than maximum. And there would be an all to real risk of it collapsing as it did during the Great Recession.

The problem isn't inflation. The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the lack of consumer savings. And while it may seem like no inflation would result in the ability for the average person to save, it wouldn't.

Inflation is caused by greed. High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

Inflation is caused by greed.

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon - Milton Friedman

High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

As opposed to any other point in human history when investors didn't want a higher return on profit.

DERP!

Inflation is bad. It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit.

In the 70's the ROI went from 12% to 50%, thus higher inflation.

Inflation is bad. It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit.

And retired people with bonds. And investors with bonds. And banks with bonds.

In the 70's the ROI went from 12% to 50%,

Link?

Inflation is GOOD for bond holders? How so?

Oil up 870% - Gold up 1000%. Commodity returns were up 21%

Stock investors feeling left out demanded 50% of profits up from 12%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Your "plan" didn't reduce individual rates.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.​

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

How much larger?

Here's employee expenses, you tell me.

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative

No, corporate tax will be 30% of revenues.​

And yet, you're rebating them trillions.

You state my plan is bad but you can't identify why, and when pushed, only provide half or less of you point.

I'm returning tax monies to the people.

You state my plan is bad but you can't identify why

You think corporations are undertaxed, and your plan hands them trillions. DERP!

I'm returning tax monies to the people.

Yeah, the people who own corporations.

And again, put-up or shut-up.

I agree, I showed how much your "plan" will hand to corporations.
Now you should show how much your stupid 30% tax on revenues will raise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation."

That is not a realistic concept, as in not part of reality. It's not simply impractical. It is no more real then expecting to eliminate gravity. Inflation is a necessary and required part of the way the economy functions. It has to be held low, but not zero. The other option in deflation. To put it simply, deflation is very bad. During the Great Recession, the rate of inflation fell to -3%. This was because people stopped buying things. Prices collapsed as did employment and the economy.

It is impossible to hold the percentage change in the CPI, or any measure of inflation, to zero. On a quarter to quarter basis, the rate of inflation varies from as much as -0.8% to as much as 1.7%. The average yearly inflation for the last eight years was 1.9%. In 2015, the rate was 0.4%. For 2017 it was 2.2%. These rates are actually quite remarkable considering that in the decades of the 1970 and 1980, the yearly inflation rate hit 12.64% and averaged about 6% per year for the entire 20 year period.

The Federal Reserve has just three goals, maximize sustainable employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long term interest rates. These three are intimately connected. They have managed to hold inflation to 2.1%, 1.8%, 0.41% and 1.2% for the last four years. There is no plan that is going to do better. That is as close to zero as it's gonna get. Attempting to make it zero would be a disaster. Employment would suffer. It wouldn't be maximized. It would fall to less than maximum. And there would be an all to real risk of it collapsing as it did during the Great Recession.

The problem isn't inflation. The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the lack of consumer savings. And while it may seem like no inflation would result in the ability for the average person to save, it wouldn't.

Inflation is caused by greed. High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

Inflation is caused by greed.

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon - Milton Friedman

High inflation in the 70's and 80's was caused by investors wanting a higher return on profit.

As opposed to any other point in human history when investors didn't want a higher return on profit.

DERP!

Inflation is bad. It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit.

In the 70's the ROI went from 12% to 50%, thus higher inflation.

Inflation is bad. It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit.

And retired people with bonds. And investors with bonds. And banks with bonds.

In the 70's the ROI went from 12% to 50%,

Link?

Inflation is GOOD for bond holders? How so?

Oil up 870% - Gold up 1000%. Commodity returns were up 21%

Stock investors feeling left out demanded 50% of profits up from 12%.

Inflation is GOOD for bond holders? How so?

You said "It hurts no one but the poor and the poor-with credit".
I said it hurts bondholders. How many bonds do the poor own?

Stock investors feeling left out demanded 50% of profits up from 12%

Cool story bro. Post your proof.