“Redistribute the wealth”

[Hiryuu]

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

All I said was skilled labor costs more and then cost is part of production. Both are correct , neither is political, and the rest of the garbage you posted is unsupported nonsense in regards to anything I have posted. You're an idiot

 

[Tehon]

Without the straw man kaz would have no one to argue with.

 

[kaz]

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

All I said was skilled labor costs more and then cost is part of production. Both are correct , neither is political, and the rest of the garbage you posted is unsupported nonsense in regards to anything I have posted. You're an idiot

You concluded that companies will thire cheap labor over skilled labor, that's their priority as a business. That still means.

1) Companies are more interested in cutting costs than making profits

2) No employee is more valuable than another. See point one. Based on your word parsing here, I rephrased this to incorporate your denial you think all employees are the same. But from what you said, from an economic point, your argument still claimed that one isn't worth more than another

 

[Hiryuu]

You concluded that companies will thire cheap labor over skilled labor, that's their priority as a business. That still means.

1) Companies are more interested in cutting costs than making profits

2) No employee is more valuable than another. See point one. Based on your word parsing here, I rephrased this to incorporate your denial you think all employees are the same. But from what you said, from an economic point, your argument still claimed that one isn't worth more than another

Nowhere in any of my posts did I ever conclude anything about companies hiring cheap labor over skilled labor, or suggest that was a priority as a business. I gave multiple examples, contrary to the assertions you are attempting to make about what you are attempting to express I think. You are arguing with me because you made a mistake, I said it was a mistake you made and you still want to argue. You're an idiot, tell me again why you're an idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Americans are not working any harder, the increase I production is due to automation. Companies MAKE INVESTMENTS and reap the reward of those investments. Or do you think when a company buys a 250K robot, the workers should get the profit from that investment?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[kaz]

You concluded that companies will thire cheap labor over skilled labor, that's their priority as a business. That still means.

1) Companies are more interested in cutting costs than making profits

2) No employee is more valuable than another. See point one. Based on your word parsing here, I rephrased this to incorporate your denial you think all employees are the same. But from what you said, from an economic point, your argument still claimed that one isn't worth more than another

Nowhere in any of my posts did I ever conclude anything about companies hiring cheap labor over skilled labor, or suggest that was a priority as a business. I gave multiple examples, contrary to the assertions you are attempting to make about what you are attempting to express I think. You are arguing with me because you made a mistake, I said it was a mistake you made and you still want to argue. You're an idiot, tell me again why you're an idiot.

OK, fair enough. I'll take you at your word that I misread your post and start over. I read your post to say you thought the priority of companies is to pay workers less

 

[Hiryuu]

OK, fair enough. I'll take you at your word that I misread your post and start over. I read your post to say you thought the priority of companies is to pay workers less

It's okay, we all do it from time to time. Shake it loose and have another cup of coffee.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The right has nothing but selfish, capital greed. Structural unemployment happens to the poor all the time. Why do those with More Money, whine about a Natural rate of unemployment for them if it happens to Them, it is Natural.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Nope; don't care because it is not corporate downsizing where Labor loses their benefits while management got "golden parachutes".

 

[danielpalos]

Without the straw man kaz would have no one to argue with.

she really just needs a full body massage with happy ending.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Americans are not working any harder, the increase I production is due to automation. Companies MAKE INVESTMENTS and reap the reward of those investments. Or do you think when a company buys a 250K robot, the workers should get the profit from that investment?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

Americans are not working any harder, the increase I production is due to automation. Companies MAKE INVESTMENTS and reap the reward of those investments. Or do you think when a company buys a 250K robot, the workers should get the profit from that investment?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Americans are not working any harder, the increase I production is due to automation. Companies MAKE INVESTMENTS and reap the reward of those investments. Or do you think when a company buys a 250K robot, the workers should get the profit from that investment?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

Americans are not working any harder, the increase I production is due to automation. Companies MAKE INVESTMENTS and reap the reward of those investments. Or do you think when a company buys a 250K robot, the workers should get the profit from that investment?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Americans are not working any harder, the increase I production is due to automation. Companies MAKE INVESTMENTS and reap the reward of those investments. Or do you think when a company buys a 250K robot, the workers should get the profit from that investment?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.
View attachment 213962

no dears, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Americans are not working any harder, the increase I production is due to automation. Companies MAKE INVESTMENTS and reap the reward of those investments. Or do you think when a company buys a 250K robot, the workers should get the profit from that investment?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.
View attachment 213962

no dears, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.
View attachment 213962

no dears, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.

dears, the one size fits all approach, will be the Institutional not Individual upward pressure on wages; get used to it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.
View attachment 213962

no dears, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.

Agree. Next thing you know they will say we need laws that state no house is worth under 200K. Even if you have a tiny house on a tiny lot and it's only worth 80K, the new law would make somebody pay 200K.

 

[francoHFW]

yes, higher paid labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.
View attachment 213962

no dears, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.

The 2018 equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage is about$12. Thanks GOP and silly dupes. I see that about 40% of the country has trouble paying bills--I'm sure it's their fault.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ Labor is the biggest cost factor in business followed by Gubmint regulations.

So are low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.
View attachment 213962

no dears, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

/---/ Improving job skills to get a higher wages is a concept lost on Liberals. They prefer a one size fits all solution like $15 an hour regardless of your skills or where you live.

The 2018 equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage is about$12. Thanks GOP and silly dupes. I see that about 40% of the country has trouble paying bills--I'm sure it's their fault.

/---/ When I couldn't pay my bills, I cut back on spending and took a second job till things improved.