What's with the animosity towards the wealthy?

There you go! I posted a rambling post, and tell you that it is an intentionally aimless rambling post. Yet, you still felt the need to respond, but then you just prove my point for me. You have classified all profits profiteering, and you prove unequivocally that you have no knowledge of what drives the labor market. You ridiculously claim that labor costs are economic rent and profiteering. Neither of which can you accurately define. In my intentionally rambling, there were a few gems hidden. Such as, what really drives labor cost, but obviously ignored them. You have not even offered a single source that backs you illogical positions and ideas. Yet, you claim that "orthodox capitalist economists" supports your ridiculous claims. Who are these supporters? You are obviously posting outside an area of knowledge for you.

As far as you claiming that I need to show a pair and state whether I support "rent or not", the entire paragraph actually clarified that point for you. You claim that labor costs are "economic rent" when it is clearly, by accepted economic definitions, not. So, you could not understand the paragraph. I said:

"Actually, your the one rambling. You keep changing your definitions. I do not have trouble with companies making as much profit as the market will allow. That is why we have a free market society. As I have pointed out before, the majority of those profits are invested back into the company that allows them to implement technologies that will allow them to lower production costs, and pass the saving on to their customers. Or bring new products to the market. This is a good thing. "

So, let me put this in small words so you can understand this. Labor costs are not "economic rent". (sorry. I can not make my point without using those two words that you clearly don't understand.) Further, I do support companies making as much profit, or "economic rent" as the markets will allow. Again, not all profits end up as economic rent because it is invested back into the company. Now, I know that you can not restrain yourself for replying to this post, but you will not be talking to me. I will not be reading it. You have proven yourself to be a Socialist, or maybe a Communist, person that can not understand the actual factors that drive a capitalist system. I never support anyone posting from a position of ignorance. You may have a college degree in economics for all I know, but that does not mean that you understand the factors that drive capitalist markets. You might have gotten that degree from a socialist indoctrinated university, or have forgotten everything you learned in college.

So, keep posting, and have a nice life!!!

 

Then you need to work on your terminology, because the word 'need' doesn't play anywhere in the employer-employee relationship.

If an individual has a skill set that an employer requires, but there are not many with that skill set, then the individual has the upper hand in negotiations. The employer is usually willing to pay for that skill set if it is intrinsic to their service or product. No third party necessary.

If an individual has the same skillset as many other people, then the employer is able to be more selective who they hire to fill that particular position. One of those 'selections', is normally wage demand. Why would an employer voluntarily pay more if the productivity doesn't equal the pay?

There are times it happens... quite often in relationship to attitude, aptitude and expectations. Very rarely, however, will an employer hire someone at a higher rate of pay than the value of the production of position. Once the employee proves their attitude, aptitude and fulfills the employer's expectation, then there is a monetary increase.

 

Trump is in it for himself, mega tax cuts for the rich anyone... how much has the Trump family benefited

ask yourself if you benefited as much as Trump's family and his rich buddies

tax cuts for the rich were permanent, the tax cuts for the working class temporary as they were just a carrot to get the tax cuts for the rich, when they expire, they can reuse the carrot to get more goodies for the rich

 

Look at you making bobbins up!

 

Even if there is an overabundance of a certain type of labor, the interaction is still one between a seller and a buyer. Having many people capable of the same job, doesn't mean that job should neccesarily be paid a pittance, the working conditions, complexity, skill, etc. should determine that. And yes, the employer gets to decide how much he wants to pay. And the employee decides how much he wants to sell his labor for. Unions are there to be lower the power differential between employer and employee, but yeah, if the employer and employee can respect each other's right to mutually benefit, you don't need the union.

As for the employer paying if the productivity doesn't equal the pay? He can't know if the productivity equals the pay, unless he turns out dodgy after being vetted. Worth isn't just determined by the buyer, it's also determined the seller. That part is true, and in a good capitalist society should be true, for all transactiosn between buyer and seller. Unskilled labor has always been paid less than skilled labor. That's always accepted by both the seller and buyer of labor. But it isn't and shouldn't just be the buyer (the employer) who sets what that reasonable price is. Neither side should be greedy, but neither should either side paint the other side simply wanting to profit as if that was "greed".

 

In USSR 1953 -- 1991, laws prohibiting anti-Communist jokes and speech existed on books. Most people criticized Communism and were not bothered in any way. Only a few active dissidents were prosecuted.

In USSR during Stalin's Era, the laws against dissent were enforced. On Modern American Campuses, people get fired and blacklisted for slightest criticism of Progressive ideology as well.

 

Not at all, it's what this country is about. Work hard be successful and gain wealth. As much as you are capable it's no one else's business and certainly not the governments nor their job to make someone else's more equal with yours.

But the Left/Dems/Progs find it easy fodder with which to gain political support by playing on the jealousy and envy of those who are not wealthy and have not made very good decisions or are willing to take the risk necessary to become wealthy.

 

It has to do with American workers voting to not certify new unions and decertify existing ones and winning the right to not be force to join a union and have them take their paychecks. It has to do with them seeing their jobs lost because of the unions and they now work in better non-union workplaces where they actually have better work relations. American unions may have started with a higher purpose but then ended up corrupt and working for themselves not the workers.

 

Tax cuts for anyone is a good thing. Rich or poor.
How many Democrat politicians do not take a salary?
Shouldn’t it bother you more the politicians that have never had real jobs that go into politics to get rich? Say like the Clintons, Obama, or Biden’s?
When was the last tax cut given by democrats?
Your post sounds very sour grapes and greedy.

 

Tax cuts for the rich are typically a very bad idea. It encourages wealth hoarding. It encourages speculation. There's no surprise that countries which fully embraced the ideological drivel of trickle down have the worst inequality and structural deficiencies of the economy.

 

Let me write that for you in a way that is morally correct.
Tax cuts for the rich are typically a good idea. It encourages saving. It encourages investment. There is no surprise that countries that embrace the idea of egalitarianism wealth redistribution schemes typically have worst standard of of living imaginable. Countries that embrace freedom are typically the most powerful.

 

I made no mention of morality though. It was purely about economic efficiency. Tax cuts on the rich generate long term economic limitations.

 

You can’t compartmentalize the two. Ethics dictate policy. A governments moral obligation is to the freedom of its citizens. Limiting their ability to survive as an individual through freely trading with others through strict tax regulatory measures violates that ethical standard.

 

Wealthy people don't get wealthy by "wealth hording" they put their wealth to work, invested which grows the economy and creates jobs. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world and YES you can get very rich here. How has a rich person ever kept you from gaining wealth?

 

The left has created class warfare and weaponized it. They constantly push the attitude that anyone who has accumulated money must have done something immoral to get their wealth. Unless it's them. Apparently if you virtue signal enough, you can be forgiven.

 

I certainly can. Of course I would find tax cuts on the rich repugnant. But that's just my bias. I've referred objectively to efficiency criteria. Reducing tax on the rich is counterproductive.

 

You have higher poverty and lower social mobility than social democratic and Liberal democratic countries. You also have lower self employment. America is the poster child of big business running amok.

 

Your mobility is up to you not other people who are rich. We are a nation of entrepreneurs. And yes we have lots of big business for which those self-employed companies provide goods and services.

We beat
Denmark
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
Belgium
Japan
Greenland
Germany
Spain

And a host of other "social democratic and Liberal democratic countries"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

And our "poor" live better than lots of the middle class in those countries

 

History here says otherwise

 

Compartmentalizing economics from ethics is the opposite from being objective. You are context dropping. A thought error due to the lack of will necessary to integrate the two and check your premises for that idea. Bad news- holding contradictory ideas is not only bad for your mental health. But invalidates your argument.
Would you compartmentalize ethics from politics, ethics from government, ethics from relationships?
If your ideas don’t agree, well you haven’t done your mental homework.

 

It doesn't. The structural deficiencies show otherwise.

 

Its easy to be objective. One just follows the economic modelling. Now you could say ethics are naturally embedded in any science. However, that reflects typically the starting point in the evolution of the approach (e.g. understanding of God dictating understanding of market utopia).

 

But by definition that is not being objective. You’re simply following a hierarchy of cause and effect without integration in to a broader body of knowledge in an ethical guideline.
If your line of economic thinking flows down into an effect of the limitations of capitalism ( or the freedom of one man to freely buy/ sell goods to another. ) that does not validate your economic theory ethically because human existence requires the right to own property.
unless you don’t believe humans have that right, but that would be a contradiction because you own property.

 

Of course its being objective. Theory twinned with evidence. If the evidence doesn't play ball, the theory is rejected.

The origins of the ethics are unimportant. This is different to the likes of Friedman who said the theory is unimportant (only the predictions matter). Even if the origins of neoclassical economics are hyper-religious, you don't have to be religious to use their preferred modelling approach. Indeed, by being prepared to use it I demonstrate my objectivity. I haven't chosen my preferred school of thought.

 

Yes it does, the poor and middle class did quite well under the Republican supply side policies starting in 1996 through 2000, then there was a recession and again supply side policies helped to mitigate that recession and get us into a full recovery and once again the poor and middle class did quite well. Then the Democrats took back the Congress in 2007 and started with their trickle up demand side policies, tried to use them to mitigate the 2008/9 recession after also taking back the White House and it was a total failure and then with their trickle up demand side recovery polices which were also total failures, the worst recovery in modern history, and it was as the Republicans started taking back the Congress limiting those policies and then took back the Congress and the White House and instituted more supply-side policies and the poor and middle class had the best economy in modern history and did better than any other time in modern history.