War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the Union Movement, which brought about the rise of the American Middle Class

100% stupid of course. Union wages are paid for by higher prices so no net benefit is possible. Econ 101. Unions depend on the pure ignorance of liberals like Mike.

 

[MaryL]

I lack any kind of empathy for most wealthy people, the majority of whom are rich simply because they were born into it. And for those few that were born of humble roots, they understand the situation full well. How the rich get better legal/political representation, better health care, better education and have all around more gravitas than the "poor". In America , that is unacceptable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In America , that is unacceptable.

too stupid!! So you want to steal from the rich?

 

[Boss]

[...]

Walmart is successful because they offer quality products at low prices with friendly service. Millions of Americans, many of them poor and struggling, depend on Walmart for food, clothing, drugs, and basic supplies. These clowns would rather drive a stake through Walmart's heart to try and "punish the rich" instead of allowing this valuable asset to exist for so many. And destroying Walmart does absolutely NOTHING to the Walton family or their wealth! NADDA!

WalMart could continue offering quality products at low prices but while paying their employees a living wage. However, if they did so the Walton family's money hoard would be only fifty billion dollars rather than the ninety billion dollars it is today.

That is the simple fact of the matter -- as well as a crystal clear example of what has gone wrong with the U.S. Economy. In a word, the engine of the problem is greed!

You don't understand how business works, in fact, you don't understand much about how free market capitalism in general works. You're a dumb ass who believes in the fairy tale of Utopianism. You're ready to throw away our Constitutional freedoms for the false hope that we can have something for nothing. You are what is called a "useful idiot" according to Lenin.

Here, you indicate the level of your idiocy for all to see. You somehow think, if we can find any way to force Walmart to pay employees $20 an hour, the Walton family are going to go to the bank and take that extra money out of their account to pay for the increase. But that's not how it works. Raising the cost of labor simply causes the prices to rise in accordance. SO instead of poor people being able to go to Walmart and feed their family for $50 a week it will then cost $150 or more. You've not harmed the Waltons, their fortune remains untouched.

And... until you successfully repeal the 4th Amendment, you aren't laying a grubby finger on anyone's wealth assets. You will need to win a revolutionary war to do that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[...]

Walmart is successful because they offer quality products at low prices with friendly service. Millions of Americans, many of them poor and struggling, depend on Walmart for food, clothing, drugs, and basic supplies. These clowns would rather drive a stake through Walmart's heart to try and "punish the rich" instead of allowing this valuable asset to exist for so many. And destroying Walmart does absolutely NOTHING to the Walton family or their wealth! NADDA!

WalMart could continue offering quality products at low prices but while paying their employees a living wage. However, if they did so the Walton family's money hoard would be only fifty billion dollars rather than the ninety billion dollars it is today.

That is the simple fact of the matter -- as well as a crystal clear example of what has gone wrong with the U.S. Economy. In a word, the engine of the problem is greed!

You don't understand how business works, in fact, you don't understand much about how free market capitalism in general works. You're a dumb ass who believes in the fairy tale of Utopianism. You're ready to throw away our Constitutional freedoms for the false hope that we can have something for nothing. You are what is called a "useful idiot" according to Lenin.

Here, you indicate the level of your idiocy for all to see. You somehow think, if we can find any way to force Walmart to pay employees $20 an hour, the Walton family are going to go to the bank and take that extra money out of their account to pay for the increase. But that's not how it works. Raising the cost of labor simply causes the prices to rise in accordance. SO instead of poor people being able to go to Walmart and feed their family for $50 a week it will then cost $150 or more. You've not harmed the Waltons, their fortune remains untouched.

And... until you successfully repeal the 4th Amendment, you aren't laying a grubby finger on anyone's wealth assets. You will need to win a revolutionary war to do that.

the beauty of capitalism is that competition forces you to reduce your profits lower and lower so the real wealth you generate is shared by your customers. THis is why Henry Ford made only $1.56 per car.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

You somehow think, if we can find any way to force Walmart to pay employees $20 an hour, the Walton family are going to go to the bank and take that extra money out of their account to pay for the increase. But that's not how it works.

I know. Here's how it works.

The Walton family owns and operates the WalMart chain, from which they have amassed a $90billion fortune, a substantial percentage (almost half) of which is derived from paying their employees so little that most of them are receiving food stamps and/or other government (taxpayer) income supplements. So if the Waltons raise their employees' wages to a living standard the Waltons will not need to bother going to the bank to take out any money to finace the increase because the increase will be reflected in reduced profits, the effect of which will eventually reduce the Walton's $90billion fortune to around $50billion.

Raising the cost of labor simply causes the prices to rise in accordance. SO instead of poor people being able to go to Walmart and feed their family for $50 a week it will then cost $150 or more. You've not harmed the Waltons, their fortune remains untouched.

In the WalMart example, if the Waltons feel they simply cannot make it through life on a mere $50billion fortune they will consider raising prices in their stores -- which will effectively cut their own throats.

So the Waltons will have a choice of getting along on just $50billion, or raising prices and killing their business.

And... until you successfully repeal the 4th Amendment, you aren't laying a grubby finger on anyone's wealth assets. You will need to win a revolutionary war to do that.

The Fourth Amendment?

If the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect the greedy from the IRS as it is, how do you suppose it will protect you against the inevitable imposition of an equitable wage ruling -- and the possibility of a limit imposed on hoarded wealth?

I'm not suggesting it will happen tomorrow. But it's going to happen.

 

[MikeK]

I lack any kind of empathy for most wealthy people, the majority of whom are rich simply because they were born into it. And for those few that were born of humble roots, they understand the situation full well. How the rich get better legal/political representation, better health care, better education and have all around more gravitas than the "poor". In America , that is unacceptable.

Tell him, Mary!

 

[Boss]

[...]

You somehow think, if we can find any way to force Walmart to pay employees $20 an hour, the Walton family are going to go to the bank and take that extra money out of their account to pay for the increase. But that's not how it works.

I know. Here's how it works.

The Walton family owns and operates the WalMart chain, from which they have amassed a $90billion fortune, a substantial percentage (almost half) of which is derived from paying their employees so little that most of them are receiving food stamps and/or other government (taxpayer) income supplements. So if the Waltons raise their employees' wages to a living standard the Waltons will not need to bother going to the bank to take out any money to finace the increase because the increase will be reflected in reduced profits, the effect of which will eventually reduce the Walton's $90billion fortune to around $50billion.

Raising the cost of labor simply causes the prices to rise in accordance. SO instead of poor people being able to go to Walmart and feed their family for $50 a week it will then cost $150 or more. You've not harmed the Waltons, their fortune remains untouched.

In the WalMart example, if the Waltons feel they simply cannot make it through life on a mere $50billion fortune they will consider raising prices in their stores -- which will effectively cut their own throats.

So the Waltons will have a choice of getting along on just $50billion, or raising prices and killing their business.

And... until you successfully repeal the 4th Amendment, you aren't laying a grubby finger on anyone's wealth assets. You will need to win a revolutionary war to do that.

The Fourth Amendment?

If the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect the greedy from the IRS as it is, how do you suppose it will protect you against the inevitable imposition of an equitable wage ruling -- and the possibility of a limit imposed on hoarded wealth?

I'm not suggesting it will happen tomorrow. But it's going to happen.

Again... Completely illiterate in how capitalist business models work. The Walton's wealth is not going to "eventually be decreased" any at all. The price Walmart charges for goods will increase, employees will be laid off, full time employees will have hours cut, some stores will close their doors, and life goes on as usual for the Walton family.

Also, completely illiterate on the Constitution too, if this is what you think. Wealth is property, and you cannot seize property according to the 4th Amendment, without due cause... (wealth confiscation isn't due cause.) The IRS simply has no Constitutional authority to violate the 4th.

NO, it's NOT going to happen in America... not without an armed revolution.

 

[Boss]

I lack any kind of empathy for most wealthy people, the majority of whom are rich simply because they were born into it. And for those few that were born of humble roots, they understand the situation full well. How the rich get better legal/political representation, better health care, better education and have all around more gravitas than the "poor". In America , that is unacceptable.

Tell him, Mary!

Mary is more of an incompetent idiot than you! The rich always get the best of everything in ANY society... you cannot name one in the history of man where the rich didn't have the best of everything. What you are doing is fantasizing about a universe that does not exist, where poor people have the best of everything and rich people sacrifice for their sake. This fantasy world only exists between the ears of mush-brain idiots such as yourself.

 

[Boss]

[...]

Walmart is successful because they offer quality products at low prices with friendly service. Millions of Americans, many of them poor and struggling, depend on Walmart for food, clothing, drugs, and basic supplies. These clowns would rather drive a stake through Walmart's heart to try and "punish the rich" instead of allowing this valuable asset to exist for so many. And destroying Walmart does absolutely NOTHING to the Walton family or their wealth! NADDA!

WalMart could continue offering quality products at low prices but while paying their employees a living wage. However, if they did so the Walton family's money hoard would be only fifty billion dollars rather than the ninety billion dollars it is today.

That is the simple fact of the matter -- as well as a crystal clear example of what has gone wrong with the U.S. Economy. In a word, the engine of the problem is greed!

You don't understand how business works, in fact, you don't understand much about how free market capitalism in general works. You're a dumb ass who believes in the fairy tale of Utopianism. You're ready to throw away our Constitutional freedoms for the false hope that we can have something for nothing. You are what is called a "useful idiot" according to Lenin.

Here, you indicate the level of your idiocy for all to see. You somehow think, if we can find any way to force Walmart to pay employees $20 an hour, the Walton family are going to go to the bank and take that extra money out of their account to pay for the increase. But that's not how it works. Raising the cost of labor simply causes the prices to rise in accordance. SO instead of poor people being able to go to Walmart and feed their family for $50 a week it will then cost $150 or more. You've not harmed the Waltons, their fortune remains untouched.

And... until you successfully repeal the 4th Amendment, you aren't laying a grubby finger on anyone's wealth assets. You will need to win a revolutionary war to do that.

the beauty of capitalism is that competition forces you to reduce your profits lower and lower so the real wealth you generate is shared by your customers. THis is why Henry Ford made only $1.56 per car.

You're right, and Walmart has competitors. Dollar General is the fastest growing retail outlet at this time. They are capitalizing by building smaller stores in smaller neighborhoods and communities, making themselves more convenient to consumers. Before Walmart was KMart, and before Kmart was Sears.

Raising the labor cost doesn't come out of the profit margin. The profit margin is realized after labor costs are implemented into the formula. When they pay the labor cost, they have no idea what the end profits will be, it depends on sales and efficiency of the business, shrinkage, loss prevention, etc. But they have a formula for all of that, and it establishes mark-up on the items they sell. So the price of things go up, the number of employees they can have go down, the hours of full time employees are cut, unproductive stores are closed. Plans for new stores are cancelled. But the Walton fortune remains forever untouched by any of this.

 

[zeke]

the beauty of capitalism is that competition forces you to reduce your profits lower and lower so the real wealth you generate is shared by your customers. THis is why Henry Ford made only $1.56 per car.

Edward you are a ******* joker. $1.56 eh. Bet you don't have anything to prove that number. And I really liked that part about the capitalist sharing his wealth with his customers. Funny shit.


“In October 1908, the first Model T Fords were sold for $950. As Henry Ford found new ways to reduce production costs, he passed the savings on to consumers as lower prices. By 1912, the car was selling for $575. It was the first time that a new car had sold for less than the average wage of U.S. workers. The price of the Model T would continue to drop during its 19 years in production, at one point dipping as low as $280. With each price cut, more and more consumers could afford to buy the cars.

This reduction in price meant that Ford's profit margins (on each Model T) decreased but its revenues increased. How was that possible? In 1909 the profit on a car was $220. By 1914, the margin had dropped to $99. But sales were exploding. While profit margins on individual cars were smaller, the added sales volume increased total profits. During this period, the company’s net income rose from $3 million to $25 million. Its U.S. market share rose from 9.4 percent in 1908 to a remarkable 48 percent in 1914.”

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index....

 

[zeke]

Raising the labor cost doesn't come out of the profit margin.

For a "supposed" rich man, you sound like a ******* idiot when you post shit like the above. So tell me genius, What part of the companies bottom line does labor costs effect?

You think a company could double their labor costs (for example) and the profit of the company wouldn't be effected? All other things being equal ie sales, cost of materials, etc.
What a stupid claim to make.

Hey if what you say is true. lets give everybody a big raise. It won't effect a companies profit.

And don't go to the old; well the company would just raise the price of its product. Maybe they would. But the question to be asked is would a rise in prices result in a decrease in sales. In today's economic environment, yes raising prices would result in a loss of sales.

A company can not double their labor costs, keep product pricing the same and NOT have a decrease in profit.

I thought you said you were a rich guy who understands how business works. LMAO. Sure dude sure.

 

[zeke]

You're right, and Walmart has competitors. Dollar General is the fastest growing retail outlet at this time. They are capitalizing by building smaller stores in smaller neighborhoods and communities,

It is really great that the standard of living for most Americans continues to decline to the point where we are reduced to shopping at the retail establishments that offer the most poorly made product for the lowest prices all the while sending the profits to some Chinese company that made the cheap shit being offered for sale.

And all the while the employee gets to work for the wonderful minimum wage. Forcing them to shop at cheap ass places again.

And who calls this "progress"

I worked retail in its heyday. Back when retailers competed by offering the best service, the best product and a fair price. Ah the good ole days.

Who really cares if the standard of living for most is declining? Cheaper is not better.

 

[Boss]

Raising the labor cost doesn't come out of the profit margin.

For a "supposed" rich man, you sound like a ******* idiot when you post shit like the above. So tell me genius, What part of the companies bottom line does labor costs effect?

You think a company could double their labor costs (for example) and the profit of the company wouldn't be effected? All other things being equal ie sales, cost of materials, etc.
What a stupid claim to make.

Hey if what you say is true. lets give everybody a big raise. It won't effect a companies profit.

And don't go to the old; well the company would just raise the price of its product. Maybe they would. But the question to be asked is would a rise in prices result in a decrease in sales. In today's economic environment, yes raising prices would result in a loss of sales.

A company can not double their labor costs, keep product pricing the same and NOT have a decrease in profit.

I thought you said you were a rich guy who understands how business works. LMAO. Sure dude sure.

So tell me genius, What part of the companies bottom line does labor costs effect?

None of it, like I explained, dummy. Labor costs are factored into the formula of what the company has to charge to reach a certain profit margin. In fact, labor costs are one of the few tangibles that are fairly well known and don't have to be estimated.

Hey if what you say is true. lets give everybody a big raise. It won't effect a companies profit.

I didn't say it wouldn't effect a companies profit, I said it didn't come out of the profits and it doesn't. What it effects is the cost that has to be charged for the product, which may in turn effect profits overall. Because of that, it also has an effect on other tangibles. Like number of employees, number of hours worked, or even the feasibility of operations in certain areas. It might effect profits, it never effects profit margin.

I thought you said you were a rich guy who understands how business works. LMAO. Sure dude sure.

I do understand, and you're proving to be totally illiterate of it. Which is not only why you are a big jackass, but a poor one to boot.

 

[Boss]

But the question to be asked is would a rise in prices result in a decrease in sales. In today's economic environment, yes raising prices would result in a loss of sales.

It all depends on demand for the product. Yes, it typically does effect sales to raise prices, but if all competition is also raising prices and there is a demand for the product, this effect is minimal.

Take gasoline for example... because of the foreign oil market, gasoline is now twice as high in price as before King Obama. A little less is being sold as people conserve it and find other alternatives, or change their habits... but the companies who sell gas have seen record profits. You see, the extra cost of oil did not come out of the profits. The same thing happens with labor costs and all other costs.

 

[Boss]

You're right, and Walmart has competitors. Dollar General is the fastest growing retail outlet at this time. They are capitalizing by building smaller stores in smaller neighborhoods and communities,

It is really great that the standard of living for most Americans continues to decline to the point where we are reduced to shopping at the retail establishments that offer the most poorly made product for the lowest prices all the while sending the profits to some Chinese company that made the cheap shit being offered for sale.

And all the while the employee gets to work for the wonderful minimum wage. Forcing them to shop at cheap ass places again.

And who calls this "progress"

I worked retail in its heyday. Back when retailers competed by offering the best service, the best product and a fair price. Ah the good ole days.

Who really cares if the standard of living for most is declining? Cheaper is not better.

You don't have to shop cheap, you choose to do so because money is more valuable to you than quality. You almost always have the option to pay more for better quality. The standard of living in this country is arguably the best in the world. We have people on welfare who own iPhones and iPads.

Ah yes... the "good old days" when your union thugs could demand 20% "cost of living" increases under threat of a strike and get it. The capitalist figured out it was cheaper to pay foreign employees to do your job, and *poof* there went your jobs. Shouldn't have been so ******* greedy back then, you killed your golden goose. Just as you are trying again to kill the golden goose. You are beyond stupid and it seems there is no hope in repairing you.

 

[Boss]

Edward you are a ******* joker. $1.56 eh. Bet you don't have anything to prove that number. And I really liked that part about the capitalist sharing his wealth with his customers. Funny shit.

I can't speak for Edward and I don't know where the $1.56 figure comes from, but it may be that he is talking about what is known in the auto industry as "the great Ford blitz." This happened in the early 50s, when considerable post-WWII competition was vying for a share of the market and Ford, the industry giant, simply reduced their prices to absurd lows and increased production. Those years did not produce a lot of profit for the company, but it simply drove competition out of business.

 

[zeke]

Take gasoline for example... because of the foreign oil market, gasoline is now twice as high in price as before King Obama. A little less is being sold as people conserve it and find other alternatives, or change their habits... but the companies who sell gas have seen record profits. You see, the extra cost of oil did not come out of the profits. The same thing happens with labor costs and all other costs.

Stop typing dude. You are a ******* idiot.

Gas prices were down when Obama came into office because of a collapse in the world wide economy. Guess what you ******* idiot, commodity prices always fall when an economy collapses.

And what ******* extra cost of oil are you blabbing about. Price for a barrel is below 80 dollars. When it was higher, the oil companies, having the monopoly that they have, simply raised the retail price of gasoline to maintain the profit margin that resulted in record profits at the same time there were near record prices at the wholesale level.

Where in the **** did you supposedly get your education on economics? A republican comic book?


Then you want to babble about something or other that Ford did. Hey who were those car companies that Ford ran out of business in the early 50ties?

 

[Boss]

Then you want to babble about something or other that Ford did. Hey who were those car companies that Ford ran out of business in the early 50ties?

Packard... Hudson... Studebaker... Nash...

 

[Boss]

Gas prices were down when Obama came into office because of a collapse in the world wide economy. Guess what you ******* idiot, commodity prices always fall when an economy collapses.

Well you are just factually wrong about that, but no one is talking about why prices were down. I am giving you an example of something you are familiar with which doubled in price recently, and examining how it effected sales and profits. That was our argument, let's not derail the topic.

Again, the price of gas doubled... Some people bought less gas, some people changed habits, some people bought more fuel efficient cars, and actual sales of gallons probably declined. Still, gas is something we cannot do without, there is a demand regardless of price. Capitalist oil companies reduced costs in other areas, but still had to double price. Regardless, they reported record profits. So the increase in cost of one of the tangible variables had no effect on profit margins. The same will apply to labor cost increases. You're never touching their profit margin.

Now you can bow up and call me any name in the book because I don't support your liberal illiterate economic views, I don't really give two shits. I'm just here to inform your stupid ass of the facts, since you seem to be so totally and utterly clueless.