Wealthy will ALWAYS have an advantage

are you really sure you want to pull out this old chestnut??? all you are doing is lumping all the wealthy into one convenient group and blaming them all for the sins of the few. you ignore the good that has willingly been done with that wealth, because it doesn't neatly fit into your narrative. you disregard the fact that much of the investment you scoff at comes from people who are not wealthy, but have scraped together a nest egg they would like to grow. perhaps you'd like to see a council set up to determine which of these investors is worthy of sharing in industry's profits or maybe you'd even like to make those decisions yourself. no, all you've given us is a flimsy excuse for your envy, another sad attempt to disguise the green eyed monster that lurks behind every measure proposed by the modern american left.

 

Here in Ozark, Alabama it supports the individual and if they are a couple both working the family income of 36K takes care of it quite well. When you are an unskilled worker, many without high school education, there are few jobs around which pay that well. Walmart also has benefits after a person completes his initial trial period.

What you refuse to accept is, there are people, an entire class of people, who are insufficiently skilled to do any kind of work beyond the Walmart McDonalds type of menial labor, and there is no one, effectively no one, going to pay them more than they deserve. Something else you don't seem to understand is what happens with the bottom quintile of wage earners goes up, all of the higher quintiles go up even more, and the bottom quintile does not get an effective raise in buying power. If you follow the bottom 2 lines (curves) which together represent the bottom quintile, you will see that even with raises over the last 35 years their buying power remains relatively flat. Look at each curve above, and notice as you step up from one quintile to the next each successive curve has a higher increase in wage than the one just below it. I would like to see then all move up with less difference between the quintiles but history tells us it won't happen. The wealthy don't cause this, the corporations don't cause it, people cause it. Many working contracts call for an equal % raise as minimum wage gets, especially union contracts. It is that "equalization" in the 2 - 4 quintiles which is the biggest problem for minimum wage workers getting a better standard of living. However, the basic rule of economics is, there will always be a bottom quintile so long as there are quintiles and they will always have the lowest standard of living, no matter what kind of economic system we have.

View attachment 24522 Click on Image to enlarge.

 

BTW, my wife and I live on less that two unskilled workers can earn at walmart. We give away almost as much as we live on. (not including the taxes we pay on our income.)

 

Again, you completely fail to grasp economics. When you increase wages, they do one of two things.

1. They simply pass those increases on to the public.... which is *YOU*.

2. They simply replace people with machines... which is *YOU*.

In Norway, the price a meal at McDonald's is over $16. Yeah, they pay out $15 an hour to their employees, but they charge everyone $16 for food. The cost is passed right along to the customer which is *YOU*.

Similarly, in France, the price of the food is lower than it is in Norway, but they replaced all the Cashiers with Kiosks. Almost 10,000 people who could be earning money at McDonald's in France, are unemployed replaced by machines. That's *YOU* unemployed. And French youth unemployment is 26%.

Again, it's a statistical fact that 75% of all McDonald's Franchises, are owned by people who started out as minimum wage crew members. If "The rich hate us", as you moronically claim, then why did they allow so many of the people they supposedly hate, to become members of the upper class?

Lastly, again, if you the problem is government being captured by business, then stop supporting those people who do that. Stop supporting left wing politicians who sell out government contracts for "green energy" projects. Stop supporting leftists, who push bailouts. Stop supporting medicaid and medicare, which gives billions to the upper class.

 

What difference does that make? If you get rid of Walmart, all those people would earn less money. If it's 10% less, or 20% less, or 5% less, what difference does that make? Whether a little, or a lot less, it's less. Those people would be worse off. What percentage worse off, is not relevant.

And by the way.... it's not just in raw wages that we're talking about. Not only would they earn less real income, but they would also get lower benefits. Walmart employees can get paid training, and even courses that can count as credit towards a college degree. Further they can get tuition reimbursement. Additionally they get stock in walmart for a vary low fee.

Have you worked for a small company? A small business? A mom & pop shop? I have. You don't any of that. So not only are paid less in real cash, but you don't get any of the generous benefits.

The bottom line is, even if it was 1% less in raw wages, it would still be a massive loss in benefits. Of course you people on the left, don't give a crap about those people, as long as you "stick it to walmart". Greed and envy. Hallmark of the left.

 

Percentages ARE relevant, when the top 2% holds 40% of the wealth in America. There's a reason for that, and it has to do with percentages. If my 'being better off' by one percentage point has to equate to the profiteer being 90% 'better off' then, there's a problem. Most folks realize what I'm trying to say. It's the wealthy who get uptight discussing percentages, because it's ridiculously skewed.

 

Yes, there is a reason for that. It's because they created the most wealth for the country.

But no it does not make any difference. So you would rather be worse off, just so someone else is worse off?

This right here is the whole entire point of the left. You once again, proved what I've always known about you people.

[video=youtube_share;okHGCz6xxiw]http://youtu.be/okHGCz6xxiw[/video]

"What the member is saying is that he would rather the poor, be poorer, so long as the rich are not richer" -Margret Thatcher.

And the Iron Lady is as correct, and right about the left-winger today, as she was about them in November 1990, during her last speech.

That's all there is too it. Walmart is paying more, and giving more benefits, than nearly any other comparable job. If those 2.2 Million employees that have higher paying jobs at Walmart, were denied those jobs, they would all be earning less. They would all be poorer.

And the key is, by your own statement, you don't care about them being poorer. You'd rather 2.2 Million people be poorer, so long as a few rich people are not getting richer.

That's the difference between the right and the left. We want everyone to win. You want everyone to lose.

 

For every 15 cents 'extra' I get, the super wealthy get a hundred k? Point is, there comes a point where the rich demand too much in return for the pennies the non rich get 'extra'. You use British royalty to enhance your argument? REALLY?

Being poor is like treading water. Drowning is what they're actually doing though. 'Treading water' is simply delaying drowning for a bit, and corporate employers give you 'just enough' to keep you treading water, so you'll keep generating massive profits, for them.

 

Another typical fraud answer. Where was the British "royalty" in that? Certainly not Margret Thatcher. She was a research chemist before going into politics, and was born to a Methodist preacher. You leftists just make up whatever you want, to try and make a point don't you?

Further, we've already proven that most people are not just "treading water". If *YOU* are treading water, then the problem is *YOU*.

Again, 75% of all McDonald's franchise owners started as minimum wage crew members.

If your claim was true, then how could they have advanced to the point of being in the top income quintile? I thought you said they were drowning? Ending up with an average yearly income of $200,000 is drowning?

And on top of that, again... you don't have to work there. No one does. If you want to earn more money, buy a lawn mower, and cut grass. You can earn triple the wage of a fast food joint, cutting grass.

But of course that involves you sweating, and working in the heat, and bugs, and no air conditioning, and no standing in one spot, flipping burgers over. In other words, it's hard work. And you can't go home at 5 either. You can't leave until the job is done. And guess who fixes the lawn mower when it breaks? You do. You don't just go "oh sorry, no chicken today, the cooker is broken" and collect your paycheck and go home.

You don't fix the mower, then no mower. No mower, no cutting grass. No cutting grass, no paycheck.

See this is the problem right here. Your argument all revolves around the concept that you have no alternatives, that you have no choice.

But all of that is false. You do have alternatives, you just don't want to do them, because it's hard. You want an easy life, where you can do as little as possible, and get paid a ton. That will never happen. Get over it. That mythical existence, will never be reality.

Additionally, in order to justify your mythology, you super impose your myth on the wealthy. In reality, the average CEO works between 50 and 60 hours a week. He works an average 6 days a week. And often, the CEO is talking and working deals, even when he's at home, and on vacation.

The average CEO has worked many times more than a low wage, 40 hour, clock in - clock out, 30 minute lunch, two 15 minute breaks, and give me a few smoke breaks in between, worker has ever worked.

Most of these people, are earning exactly what their labor is worth.

 

Your envy is showing again. The only reason you didn't get more than than proverbial 15 cents can be determined by looking in the mirror.

I agree! I tried poor and didn't like it, so I did something about it. Why don't you?

Corporate tend to pay workers based on their production and the market price of labor. If you want more, do more to earn it.

 

Total, nonsensical, tyrannical speech and mentality, spewed at the average worker to 'motivate' them to do more for less. 'Just keep plugging away, and your ship will come in'. Total horse sheet. The ships are all cruise lines, and they're owned and operated by tyrannical profiteers, and they're staffed by underpaid, third world slaves.


Whenever you ask a profiteer, 'how much is enough?', regarding profit, the answer you'll always get is, NEVER enough. When you pose the same question in reference to labor, and how much they're paid, the answer is quite the opposite. That encapsulates perfectly, the warped mentality of the profiteer. The fact is, Sir, is that everyone can't be the next Donald Trump (who incidentally, achieved his riches by filing bankruptcy TWICE, and robbing the working people that built his casinos for him of their labor), or a PinkSlip Romney (who specialized in outsourcing other people's jobs, for personal profit). MOST of us must work, in the regular, old fashioned way, and will never achieve the riches these kinds of people manipulate their way into. MOST have to depend on an honest day's work, in exchange for an honest day's pay. Problem is, that isn't possible these days, because the 'honest' part, has been sold off, outsourced, or generally sold down the river, for the benefit of the elite few that don't give a rat's azz what anybody elses future might look like, down the line. It's all profit now, for me, and FU. We can't all be successful manipulators of the masses. The numbers simply don't play out that way.

 

Corporations pay as little as possible, ALWAYS. Otherwise, they're not being 'efficient enough', are they? My response to you is the same as I just stated. The masses can't all be super wealthy tycoons, and most have to actually work for a living, versus being successful gamblers with somebody elses money, their labor, or their ignorance. Some are masters at performing this kind of ritual, and are able to rape at will. MOST have to work. There is no such thing as an honest profit, in exchange for honest work. It's completely lopsided, where the tyrant demands a thousand times his "investment" (which is quite often still, other people's money), but the worker, gets only enough to keep him treading water, enough to scare the sheet out of him and keep him working, generating all of those profits.

Whatever happened to an 'honest days' work for an honest day's pay'? I'll tell you. It's gone...long gone, Sold off for profit, along with every other working person's futures. That's reality.

 

Boom! Good post, my friend.

 

Wrong!

Wrong! My response to you is the same as I just stated. The masses can't all be super wealthy tycoons, and most have to actually work for a living, versus being successful gamblers with somebody elses money, their labor, or their ignorance. Some are masters at performing this kind of ritual, and are able to rape at will. MOST have to work.[/quote]Most do work and most corporations are fair and good corporate citizens. My issue with you is not whether or not SOME CORPORATIONS ARE GREEDY, my issue with you is the broad brush and your absolutism and your envy of wealthy people.

Of course there is, that is why our economy is so prosperous.

Lopsided? maybe, but the wealthy do not detract from the less wealthy.

 

I don't blame the victim. I blame the envious.

No he is not. He is a jealous absolutist who because of his own bitterness and corporate hatred has caused his own failure. Most people do quite will in our economy and the rich do not detract from the less wealthy accumulating wealth.

Nothing like a little Georgism spouting BS.

What a pile of horse pucky!

 

Think about the fact that occupying land paying LVT and owning land Fee Simple both having tenure and exclusive rights to the use of the land, both paying taxes. With as you said earlier, the land owner has to pay tax on both his land AND his improvements such as a house or a commercial building, and the LVT occupier paying only the LVT which will be less than the land owner pays, which of the two funds more infrastructure? Please give me a real world answer, not some theoretical BS that we both know won't ever happen.

 

A 'real world' answer. hmmm..

I think I have it. Goes something like this..

Take all you can take. Loot, pilfer, and manipulate all, until YOU think you have enough. Join in on the fun, take whatever you like, and let somebody else worry about the aftermath.

 

I expect you are speaking for yourself. Keep it up, you are proving your self over and over.

 

That's not a 'winning' formula for success? I think the corporate beasts would beg to differ with you. (in reality...not in double speak).

 

In most cases full location subsidy repayment would be more, but the exact amount would depend on the improvement value ratio. There are places like Detroit where property tax rates are high, and land value is so low that the property tax falls almost entirely on improvements. In such cases, even full repayment of the location subsidy might be less than the current property tax bill for the majority of owners (it would of course be far more for owners of vacant land and abandoned buildings).

Full repayment of the location subsidy not only funds more infrastructure, but funds it efficiently, aligning government's own financial incentives with the public interest in efficient provision of public services and infrastructure.

I know it will happen. It is certain and inevitable, and probably not too many years in the future.

 

Accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries is even more despicable than blaming the victims of injustice for their victimization.

Nothing like a little ad hominem personal attack...

It is self-evident that most people are not doing well in our economy, and I have already proved to you that the wealthy do detract from the less wealthy accumulating wealth.

It's just a fact of economics. It is merely a fact of economics you have chosen not to know, because you have already realized that it proves your cherished beliefs are false.

 

Most Corporations are good corporate citizens. I have to presume you meant that is how you try to prosper.

 

Most infrastructure is paid for by property taxes or fees for the service. Electric services are fee based and installed by the company. Water and Sewage is usually an fee paid service. Without the landowners there would have been no community, no infrastructure, and no prosperity.

Not if the people are sane it won't. LVT is a scam perpetrated by people who want to eliminate private property for their own purposes, certainly not for the citizenry.

 

I don't accuse those who are actually in opposition to injustice, I support them. I will never support the envious who are usually failures based on their own short comings.

I agree, especially you calling my opinion despicable.

As you never proved anything in the old forum, you have not proved anything here. You are wrong. Wealth is not finite and the wealthy do not detract from the less wealthy acquiring wealth.

What I do know about economics will make your knowledge visible on the head of a pin. You are definitely economics challenged, just as you were in the other forums.

LVT is not a people thing, it is a government thing, it is one of the various definitions of socialism, which has always been a dismal failure.

This should be repeated more than once in a post, "One cannot get around the fact that landowners are the ones who pay the taxes, which creates most of the infrastructure in a community, thus enhancing the value of all the land around them, which increases the prosperity of the economy.

Goodnight all!

 

All hail the corporation. I got it, Republican.