“Redistribute the wealth”

[Hiryuu]

Good capitalist know how to achieve gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in the first world. It really is that simple.

if you aren't a Good enough capitalist, you can always resort to cheap labor in second or third world economies.

Good capitalists always know that cheap labor is an accurate description. More valuable labor costs more.

The idiotic leftist lack of grasp of basic knowledge.

Capitalists care about profit, not cost. Leftist simpletons never gasp that.

Sometimes better employees lead to better results. Then we pay for it. Sometimes it doesn't, then we don't.

Seriously, you're a ******* moron that you think we care about cost and don't grasp that we want to maximize profit.

That's good for employees too. Idiots like you who hate their employers don't keep jobs. People who grasp that companies that make profits are the ones who can continue to pay employees thrive.

Do you know Joe? He has the same bad attitude about work that you do

Cost is a part of production, and a business owner cares about it to the extent it influences price and profit, goofball. You and JoeB can swap spit or beat the shit out of each other for all I care. I wasn't asking a question, but thanks for your fucked up advice, and I'll file under "miscellaneous garbage".

 

[kaz]

Good capitalist know how to achieve gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in the first world. It really is that simple.

if you aren't a Good enough capitalist, you can always resort to cheap labor in second or third world economies.

Good capitalists always know that cheap labor is an accurate description. More valuable labor costs more.

The idiotic leftist lack of grasp of basic knowledge.

Capitalists care about profit, not cost. Leftist simpletons never gasp that.

Sometimes better employees lead to better results. Then we pay for it. Sometimes it doesn't, then we don't.

Seriously, you're a ******* moron that you think we care about cost and don't grasp that we want to maximize profit.

That's good for employees too. Idiots like you who hate their employers don't keep jobs. People who grasp that companies that make profits are the ones who can continue to pay employees thrive.

Do you know Joe? He has the same bad attitude about work that you do

Cost is a part of production, and a business owner cares about it to the extent it influences price and profit, goofball. You and JoeB can swap spit or beat the shit out of each other for all I care. I wasn't asking a question, but thanks for your fucked up advice, and I'll file under "miscellaneous garbage".

No shit. I just explained it to you.

Profit = revenue - cost.

I'm an MBA, trust me on that. We want to maximize profit.

So sure, if we can get the same revenue, we only care about cost. But if a higher quality worker increases cost, but increases revenue more, then we hire the higher quality worker.

In your idiotic Marxist rhetoric, you said workers are tools like screwdrivers, one is as good as another. So since no matter who we hire, we just want the cheapest one.

What you said was driven by stupid and Marxist rhetoric. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Then again if you did know what you were talking about, you wouldn't be a Democrat. Democrats manipulate the stupid. You know. You

 

[Markle]

Henry Ford doubled auto worker wages. He did not whine about minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, do that.

I relish in reading how many lies you can fill a thread with and feel no shame. I think the term psychotic applies to you. A characteristic of serial killers.

Here is what really happened with Henry Ford, the assembly line, and why he increased wages. Hint, it had nothing whatsoever to do with those employees being able to afford to buy one of his cars. Myths are so cool, aren't they?

217,992 viewsMar 4, 2012, 12:28pm
The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think
[...]
It's also not true that the offer was of $5 a day in wages. It was all rather more complicated than that:

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

Outside of the military it's difficult to think of an American workforce that would be willing to accept such paternalism even if wages were doubled today.

So it wasn't $5 a day and it was done actually to reduce total labour costs by reducing labour turnover. And as a final nail in the coffin of the argument that it was done so that the workers could afford the cars, there's this.

Car production in the year before the pay rise was 170,000, in the year of it 202,000. As we can see above the total labour establishment was only 14,000 anyway. Even if all of his workers bought a car every year it wasn't going to make any but a marginal difference to the sales of the firm.

We can go further too. As we've seen the rise in the daily wage was from $2.25 to $5 (including the bonuses etc). Say 240 working days in the year and 14,000 workers and we get a rise in the pay bill of $9 1/4 million over the year. A Model T cost between $550 and $450 (depends on which year we're talking about). 14,000 cars sold at that price gives us $7 3/4 million to $6 1/4 million in income to the company.

It should be obvious that paying the workforce an extra $9 million so that they can then buy $7 million's worth of company production just isn't a way to increase your profits. It's a great way to increase your losses though.

The reason for the pay rise was not as some of our contemporaries seem to think it was. It was nothing at all to do with creating a workforce that could afford to buy the products. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labour force: for, yes, in certain circumstances, raising wages can reduce total labour costs.
[...]
The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

 

[Hiryuu]

No shit. I just explained it to you.

Profit = revenue - cost.

I'm an MBA, trust me on that. We want to maximize revenue.

So sure, if we can get the same revenue, we only care about cost. But if a higher quality worker increases cost, but increases revenue more, then we hire the higher quality worker.

In your idiotic Marxist rhetoric, you said workers are tools like screwdrivers, one is as good as another. So since no matter who we hire, we just want the cheapest one.

What you said was driven by stupid and Marxist rhetoric. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Then again if you did know what you were talking about, you wouldn't be a Democrat. Democrats manipulate the stupid. You know. You

Look goofball, I didn't ask you to explain anything. I know what I need to know about business from resource allocation, through process management, quality control, regulatory compliance, corrective action, cost reduction, market analysis, targeted marketing, limited liabilities, profit dispersal, sustainability and capital reinvestment.

You may have an MBA, but you don't run my business.

Furthermore, although I could be considered a liberal (not by your fucked up definition of the word), it would be more classical liberal like our Founding Fathers. I'm damn sure not a Progressive or a socialist, never been a Democrat, and couldn't be any more of a Capitalist than I already am. Karl Marx sucks, and I consistently have presented at least 20 posts in this thread that if you had the common sense of a gnat, you would know how wrong you are in your response.

All I ever said that set your retarded ass off is that cheap labor is exactly that (cheap), and that if someone wants to be paid more, they better make their services more valuable (more valuable than cheap labor that is). I'm not going to pay the forklift driver and my accountant the same amount, therefore the accountant is going to cost more in payroll (not counting the saving the accountant might help me recognize).

 

[danielpalos]

Henry Ford doubled auto worker wages. He did not whine about minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, do that.

I relish in reading how many lies you can fill a thread with and feel no shame. I think the term psychotic applies to you. A characteristic of serial killers.

Here is what really happened with Henry Ford, the assembly line, and why he increased wages. Hint, it had nothing whatsoever to do with those employees being able to afford to buy one of his cars. Myths are so cool, aren't they?

217,992 viewsMar 4, 2012, 12:28pm
The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think
[...]
It's also not true that the offer was of $5 a day in wages. It was all rather more complicated than that:

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

Outside of the military it's difficult to think of an American workforce that would be willing to accept such paternalism even if wages were doubled today.

So it wasn't $5 a day and it was done actually to reduce total labour costs by reducing labour turnover. And as a final nail in the coffin of the argument that it was done so that the workers could afford the cars, there's this.

Car production in the year before the pay rise was 170,000, in the year of it 202,000. As we can see above the total labour establishment was only 14,000 anyway. Even if all of his workers bought a car every year it wasn't going to make any but a marginal difference to the sales of the firm.

We can go further too. As we've seen the rise in the daily wage was from $2.25 to $5 (including the bonuses etc). Say 240 working days in the year and 14,000 workers and we get a rise in the pay bill of $9 1/4 million over the year. A Model T cost between $550 and $450 (depends on which year we're talking about). 14,000 cars sold at that price gives us $7 3/4 million to $6 1/4 million in income to the company.

It should be obvious that paying the workforce an extra $9 million so that they can then buy $7 million's worth of company production just isn't a way to increase your profits. It's a great way to increase your losses though.

The reason for the pay rise was not as some of our contemporaries seem to think it was. It was nothing at all to do with creating a workforce that could afford to buy the products. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labour force: for, yes, in certain circumstances, raising wages can reduce total labour costs.
[...]
The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

salary and benefits. only the right wing, quibbles without a Cause.

 

[kaz]

No shit. I just explained it to you.

Profit = revenue - cost.

I'm an MBA, trust me on that. We want to maximize revenue.

So sure, if we can get the same revenue, we only care about cost. But if a higher quality worker increases cost, but increases revenue more, then we hire the higher quality worker.

In your idiotic Marxist rhetoric, you said workers are tools like screwdrivers, one is as good as another. So since no matter who we hire, we just want the cheapest one.

What you said was driven by stupid and Marxist rhetoric. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Then again if you did know what you were talking about, you wouldn't be a Democrat. Democrats manipulate the stupid. You know. You

Look goofball, I didn't ask you to explain anything. I know what I need to know about business from resource allocation, through process management, quality control, regulatory compliance, corrective action, cost reduction, market analysis, targeted marketing, limited liabilities, profit dispersal, sustainability and capital reinvestment.

You may have an MBA, but you don't run my business.

Furthermore, although I could be considered a liberal (not by your fucked up definition of the word), it would be more classical liberal like our Founding Fathers. I'm damn sure not a Progressive or a socialist, never been a Democrat, and couldn't be any more of a Capitalist than I already am. Karl Marx sucks, and I consistently have presented at least 20 posts in this thread that if you had the common sense of a gnat, you would know how wrong you are in your response.

All I ever said that set your retarded ass off is that cheap labor is exactly that (cheap), and that if someone wants to be paid more, they better make their services more valuable (more valuable than cheap labor that is). I'm not going to pay the forklift driver and my accountant the same amount, therefore the accountant is going to cost more in payroll (not counting the saving the accountant might help me recognize).

No, you're not a liberal. I'm a liberal. You're an authoritarian leftist. I never said nor would I ever say you're a liberal. You're definitely not.

So you run a business, and you just hire the worst, cheapest employees because you don't think one is worth more than another? What the **** kind of business is that, Karl?

 

[Hiryuu]

No, you're not a liberal. I'm a liberal. You're an authoritarian leftist. I never said nor would I ever say you're a liberal. You're definitely not.

So you run a business, and you just hire the worst, cheapest employees because you don't think one is worth more than another? What the **** kind of business is that, Karl?

How in the hell did you come to the conclusion I am an authoritarian, when I have repeated stated in this thread that the most screwed up thing anyone could do would be involve the government in business? The rest of the assertions in your post are an exact contradiction to everything in the last paragraph of my post. Gotdam you are stupid, why the heck anyone would give you a degree is beyond me.

 

[Markle]

No they dont. Not immediately anyway. With poor people its a revolving door. With people who are better off less gets put back into the economy straight away.

So what? Why do you refuse to answer the questions I have posed to you?

Here is another question for you. Do people in the lowest income bracket remain there all their lives?

What questions ?
Some do because they lack the skills or intelligence or opportunity to move on. Should they have a shit life because they cant cut it ?

Very, very few people remain in the same income bracket. As a society, we move up and down through the brackets over the course of our lives. Other than newspaper route or working on a tropical fish farm, my first "real" job was when I turned 16 and started working as a bagboy for $0.85 per hour plus tips. Yes, that was $0.15 below minimum wage because of the tips. Superior service, quick service, friendly service led to GREAT TIPS! Over the years, I worked myself into, what surprised me, was the top 5-10% bracket for decades. Now, retired, my income is in the middle-income brackets. Many retirees are back to the lower income brackets because they depend only on SS.

The other questions?

What is the typical income of a household where at least one worker earned minimum wage?

How many households depend on only one worker earning minimum wage?

 

[Markle]

Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution regarding the General Welfare.

The fifth purpose, to "promote the general Welfare," had a generally understood meaning at the time of the Constitution. The concept will be developed fully in the discussion of the Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8, but a few comments are germane here. The salient point is that its implications are negative, not positive—a limitation on power, not a grant of power. By definition "general" means applicable to the whole rather than to particular parts or special interests. A single example will illustrate the point. In the late 1790s Alexander Hamilton, an outspoken advocate of loose construction of the Constitution as well as of using the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify a wide range of "implied powers," became convinced that a federally financed system of what would soon be called internal improvements—building roads, dredging rivers, digging canals—was in the national interest. But, since each project would be of immediate advantage only to the area where it was located, none could properly be regarded as being in the general welfare. Accordingly, Hamilton believed a constitutional amendment would be necessary if internal improvements were to be undertaken. James Madison, in his second term as President, would veto a congressional bill on precisely that ground.

Guide to the Constitution

 

[Markle]

if Only,

i could find nice girls who love full body massage with happy ending, at the nine-nine cent store.

No surprise you have to pay.

 

[Hiryuu]

What is the typical income of a household where at least one worker earned minimum wage?

I don't remember all the statistics off the top of my head, but looked up that answer by chance about three days ago in conjunction with a different minimum wage question. Since most minimum wage earners (3.3 million in America as I remember) are not single mothers (the greatest majority are teenagers) the average household income (the net income of all wage earners in the house) is $53,000 annually (that's more than double the poverty line for a family of four in America).

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution regarding the General Welfare.

The fifth purpose, to "promote the general Welfare," had a generally understood meaning at the time of the Constitution. The concept will be developed fully in the discussion of the Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8, but a few comments are germane here. The salient point is that its implications are negative, not positive—a limitation on power, not a grant of power. By definition "general" means applicable to the whole rather than to particular parts or special interests. A single example will illustrate the point. In the late 1790s Alexander Hamilton, an outspoken advocate of loose construction of the Constitution as well as of using the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify a wide range of "implied powers," became convinced that a federally financed system of what would soon be called internal improvements—building roads, dredging rivers, digging canals—was in the national interest. But, since each project would be of immediate advantage only to the area where it was located, none could properly be regarded as being in the general welfare. Accordingly, Hamilton believed a constitutional amendment would be necessary if internal improvements were to be undertaken. James Madison, in his second term as President, would veto a congressional bill on precisely that ground.

Guide to the Constitution

Promote is a positive construction not a negative construction.

 

[danielpalos]

if Only,

i could find nice girls who love full body massage with happy ending, at the nine-nine cent store.

No surprise you have to pay.

everything costs, under capitalism.

 

[Markle]

What is the typical income of a household where at least one worker earned minimum wage?

I don't remember all the statistics off the top of my head, but looked up that answer by chance about three days ago in conjunction with a different minimum wage question. Since most minimum wage earners (3.3 million in America as I remember) are not single mothers (the greatest majority are teenagers) the average household income (the net income of all wage earners in the house) is $53,000 annually (that's more than double the poverty line for a family of four in America).

You're quite right.

A FACT that "Tommy Tainant" and "danialpalos" refuse to face or acknowledge.

They won't acknowledge this either or they'll acknowledge this post with the laughing post acknowledgment.

 

[danielpalos]

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand; the laws of demand and supply don't cease to exist for right wing fantasy.

 

[Billy000]

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

Lol inflation depends on how high it is raised and how it is raised such as being indexed. Either way, if people make more money they SPEND more money. Consumer spending is 70% of our economy. This would obviously help the economy in the process.

No, I think you are mistaken. The economy depends on people spending residual or disposal income.

So Democrats take over and institute a $15.00 minimum wage. That means you are now making $600.00 a week instead of $300.00 a week. But your rent increases $100.00 a month. Your groceries increase $100.00 a month. Your utilities increase $100.00 a month. You'd be in worse shape after the increase than before because now you entered a higher income tax bracket where a higher percentage of you paycheck goes to government.

Lol you’re completely making up those figures. I really don’t think you understand the minimum wage debate. We aren’t proposing doubling it tomorrow. It’s gradually raising it over a few years. Again, the federal wage as you know, is only for 3% of the population so doubling it wouldn’t have some catastrophic effect. What’s reasonable is gradually raising it to $12 per hour. The effect on inflation in this case would be insignificant. Something at Burger King would go up by a few dimes and meanwhile a person has a few extra hundred bucks a month. We are talking about pennies on the dollar for any price hike.

Let me ask you this, if wages are already decades behind the rate of inflation, what is magically supposed to happen for corporations to drastically boost wages on their own accord? They maximize profit by spending as little as labor as they possibly can already. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. What exactly are you waiting for to happen? You’re deluding yourself.

Not every business is Burger King. Burger king sells 800 whoppers a day, the sell 400 cheeseburgers a day, they sell 1,200 beverages a day, they sell 700 french fries a day. Of course a minimum wage increase will only affect the prices minimally. However Joe's Hardware store does not sell 700 hammers a day. Bob's beverage store does not sell 500 12 packs a day.

Whether its graduate or immediate, what's the difference? Think people will notice less if it's gradual?

Yes, 3% of our workforce works for minimum wage, but increasing it creates a domino effect. I'm a landlord, and I have to pay the water and sewer bills here. If employees of the water and sewer departments make more money, then my water and sewer bills increase which I have to increase rents to recoup. Same goes if I have a lawn care service or a company to snowplow my parking lot and drive. Same goes if I need a plumber or remodeler. Everybody's wage increase because of the minimum wage increase, and we all pay those increases one way or another. We have to pass on those losses one way or another.

Again, you’re suggesting that ANY raise to the minimum wage done in ANY way would be catastrophic somehow. That’s so ridiculous. Yes, if we raised the minimum wage to $20 per hour TOMORROW, it would be catastrophic. That is a far cry from what I am suggesting though. You’re also right that under that scenario that struggling businesses couldn’t handle the raise and would go under. My response is “so be it” because raising the minimum wage is crucial in trying to alleviate poverty. No solution doesn’t have drawbacks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

Lol inflation depends on how high it is raised and how it is raised such as being indexed. Either way, if people make more money they SPEND more money. Consumer spending is 70% of our economy. This would obviously help the economy in the process.

No, I think you are mistaken. The economy depends on people spending residual or disposal income.

So Democrats take over and institute a $15.00 minimum wage. That means you are now making $600.00 a week instead of $300.00 a week. But your rent increases $100.00 a month. Your groceries increase $100.00 a month. Your utilities increase $100.00 a month. You'd be in worse shape after the increase than before because now you entered a higher income tax bracket where a higher percentage of you paycheck goes to government.

Lol you’re completely making up those figures. I really don’t think you understand the minimum wage debate. We aren’t proposing doubling it tomorrow. It’s gradually raising it over a few years. Again, the federal wage as you know, is only for 3% of the population so doubling it wouldn’t have some catastrophic effect. What’s reasonable is gradually raising it to $12 per hour. The effect on inflation in this case would be insignificant. Something at Burger King would go up by a few dimes and meanwhile a person has a few extra hundred bucks a month. We are talking about pennies on the dollar for any price hike.

Let me ask you this, if wages are already decades behind the rate of inflation, what is magically supposed to happen for corporations to drastically boost wages on their own accord? They maximize profit by spending as little as labor as they possibly can already. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. What exactly are you waiting for to happen? You’re deluding yourself.

Not every business is Burger King. Burger king sells 800 whoppers a day, the sell 400 cheeseburgers a day, they sell 1,200 beverages a day, they sell 700 french fries a day. Of course a minimum wage increase will only affect the prices minimally. However Joe's Hardware store does not sell 700 hammers a day. Bob's beverage store does not sell 500 12 packs a day.

Whether its graduate or immediate, what's the difference? Think people will notice less if it's gradual?

Yes, 3% of our workforce works for minimum wage, but increasing it creates a domino effect. I'm a landlord, and I have to pay the water and sewer bills here. If employees of the water and sewer departments make more money, then my water and sewer bills increase which I have to increase rents to recoup. Same goes if I have a lawn care service or a company to snowplow my parking lot and drive. Same goes if I need a plumber or remodeler. Everybody's wage increase because of the minimum wage increase, and we all pay those increases one way or another. We have to pass on those losses one way or another.

Again, you’re suggesting that ANY raise to the minimum wage done in ANY way would be catastrophic somehow. That’s so ridiculous. Yes, if we raised the minimum wage to $20 per hour TOMORROW, it would be catastrophic. That is a far cry from what I am suggesting though. You’re also right that under that scenario that struggling businesses couldn’t handle the raise and would go under. My response is “so be it” because raising the minimum wage is crucial in trying to alleviate poverty. No solution doesn’t have drawbacks.

Oh, so the drawback of people going out of business because of minimum wage increases is okay with you? What if banks decided to double their interest rates on mortgages and you lost your home? Would you say "so be it?"

And if you were thinking of opening up your own business and the new wage was passed, and then you couldn't open that business, that's okay too, huh?

You people think that every business owner is sitting on a pile of money just waiting for the right moment for the left to take it, don't you? Well when we close off all these jobs, WTF are you going to work? Who are you going to blame? Certainly nobody on the left I'm sure.

Brilliant: people won't take the effort to make their labor worth more money by learning a trade or getting eduction, so the smart thing to do is put this country back into another recession to teach those business owners a lesson.

 

[francoHFW]

The new BS GOP has been a huge give away to the Rich 4 35 years while cutting services for the non-rich. Only brainwashed fools can't see it. Poor America.

 

[francoHFW]

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 35 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[kaz]

No, you're not a liberal. I'm a liberal. You're an authoritarian leftist. I never said nor would I ever say you're a liberal. You're definitely not.

So you run a business, and you just hire the worst, cheapest employees because you don't think one is worth more than another? What the **** kind of business is that, Karl?

How in the hell did you come to the conclusion I am an authoritarian, when I have repeated stated in this thread that the most screwed up thing anyone could do would be involve the government in business? The rest of the assertions in your post are an exact contradiction to everything in the last paragraph of my post. Gotdam you are stupid, why the heck anyone would give you a degree is beyond me.

Um ... your Marxist rhetoric that companies are far, far more interested in reducing costs and screwing employees then they are in making profits. Then there's how you thought every employee is the same and one isn't any better or worth more than another. Don't swallow the Communist Manifesto and spit it out then wonder why anyone would think you're an authoritarian leftist Marxist.

Repeat after me. A company's primary focus is not cost, it's profit. Cost is only a factor.

Employees are not screwdrivers where one has the same value as another.

Now put away the Communist manifesto, thank you