There is no such thing as 'wealth distribution' because wealth is earned not distributed. 'Wealth distribution' is nothing more than a propaganda term from those who wish to 'distribute' everyone's wealth via a parasitical socialist system bent on distributing pain to everyone.......Except the 'distributors' of course.
Please give me just something of food to live. Then, I can reply for here with something with wealthness for the people. Needless of my description? So.
To say that is clueless. People are not allowed to produce, when the factories, are moved to slave labor. Of course if you want to make a toaster or a washing machine in your basement and then compete with 50 cent an hour labor, you will find out the cluelessness. How can some people be so clueless? Now granted I am retired from my manufacturing business, but I knew this before I ever started that business long ago.
There will only be less profit for the producers if produced here. Like we did for most of our history. People seem to forget that we used to produce everything. But here is the deal on that. Owners had to settle for less profits and be less wealthy. I did that when I paid my employees a living wage while non of my competitors did. I had to keep less of the income pie. And that is exactly how you do it. To think that America cannot produce here what we consume is the result of brainwashing. For I remember when we did just that. It created the largest middle class in world history, but you cannot max out profits, yet people still got rich. LOL
Not giving someone what they want to do a job is not the same and not allowing them to do work. If it is, you're not allowing me to work. You're not giving me a factory either.
Appreciate your comment but you didn't answer my questions which were meant to quantify your position instead of just diatribe.
then feel free to thank the EPA which played a huge role in chasing away manufacturing Next, go and thank the unions who also played a huge role I too own a business and worry each day about cash-flow and managing it. I've had many occasions where receivables were so aged that I made payroll using my own savings. Naturally I don't get paid. Dodd/Frank stripped away access to LOC's which helped smooth cash flow bumps. That is yet another example of govt injuring business. It's now too late to bring back manufacturing because the consumer has tasted low price, disposable items such as $300 for a 50 inch TV, $300 laptops and $200 tablets etc etc. We like our $10 coffee makers. Also, the regulations and permit process has become too expensive So, the arrogance must stop and people need to face reality. It is up to the individual to become and remain marketable. If you don't care to do that, then min wage jobs wull be where you find yourself. Also, not all good jobs will be here in the USA and you might need to relocate. That is the reality of a global economy. If residing near your childhood friends or family is top on your list, then either find a profession that allows you to do that or resolve yourself to struggling. There are no assurances that you can remain where you wish and live the lifestyle that you want.
ahh, the post-WW2 argument why do you suppose it was that the USA was able to do that? Next, let's fast forward to the 80's and 90's and the high-tech boom; why is it that it was possible to produce goods and create lots of jobs then as well? What has happened that it's changed? Here's a tip, a quick Democrat talking point isn 't the answer, it requires some thought.
You are full of it. LOL. I distributed wealth in the manufacturing business I owned for half a century. My competitors did it too. EXCEPT I did not distribute it like they did. They paid mostly non living wages, and kept a helluva chunk of what their companies were creating in income for themselves. I kept less for my family, and gave more in wages to my workers who were making my income as well as theirs by actually doing the work that was creating the income. I paid all of my workers a living wage. So that is how income is distributed in the REAL WORLD. And it is not coming from some book, but from real life, with a real business, with a real owner...me. So you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*) sir. No offense, but you guys really (*)(*)(*)(*) me off in your right wingnut ignorance. It gets my blood pressure up, these damned lies.
Because we loaned the nations torn up by ww2 money to buy what our workers could make them. And then never got back all of that money in loans. But never forget that this allowed us to start making consumer goods for our own people, who were paid enough to buy what they were making. And our trade deals with the devastated nations allowed them to reboot, by making what they consumed. Our consumer goods to other nations was mostly in machinery and tools to get them back on their feet. But we grew our middle class by Ford's better idea, that is, you pay your people making our goods enough to buy those goods. A consumption based economy, if it wants to have most people with jobs, has to make what it consumes. That is some kinda law. And if we do not do that, then there will never be enough jobs especially living wage jobs, for our population. And that is a mathematical certainty. And that basic fact is what you will not admit, and you never hear anyone even talk about it. Why is that, given that it is such a simple fact? But if you use your own people to make what they consume, most of it, and you pay them enough to buy what they consume, you cannot max out profits for corporations. Another fact. So what is more important to a nation's people, who all have to work for a living? Which way should that nation structure its economic model? To provide for the people, with jobs, or to allow corporations to max out profits by offshoring to slave labor? That is the question, which no one addresses. We know what provides jobs for the people in America, for we have been there and done that. We can also see what model does not provide enough jobs, and with TPP this will only worsen. But hey, the big boys are doing just fine. But this is not sustainable and it will lead to either a revolution at the ballot box or it will lead to the other revolution which is much more costly, with more suffering, and deadly. Read history man. This kinda crap never endures, and in modern times it certainly will not endure for people can communicate so much easier today. It is a bomb waiting to go off, created by your kind of thinking.
you are partially there but full disclosure would not serve your narrative the other industrial nations were blown to bits. Yes, they needed machinery in order to build factories and they needed the tools in order to produce. That was a very large market to be served by substantially smaller than today workforce so supply/demand worked as it should. In the 80's and 90's when PC's and then the broadband revolution began, again the USA and a few other developed nations such as Japan, Ireland (yes Ireland), Israel, Canada, France, and other (now EU) nations were at the forefront. There was more demand than there was supply so what happens when that occurs? Products then began to becom commoditized which allowed the targeting of small business and the consumer. In order to hit that volume and serve that market segment, costs had to be reduced. The concept of "reference designs" and "Software Development Kits (SDK's)" helped drive down costs and standards made it possible for high volume/lower cost production and thus, lower sale price. It was not that long ago when dial up modem A would not work with dial up modem B. Bluetooth was still a pirate name to most people and WiFi had no meaning at all. It was not that long ago that you needed a different cell phone charging cable for every new model. By simplifying and standardizing technology products, it allowed for them to be built at lower cost and emerging markets now had technology within their reach. Sure, the USA could have tried to compete but that would mean that California and the EPA would have had to not chase away chip foundries from "silicon valley". If you want to erect a wall then the govt can dictate what a worker should be paid and what products we are allowed to pruchase and from where. We could also impose more hefty tariffs on imported goods so the govt gets more tax revenue and the consumer lowers their way of life because they can afford less. Supply and demand does work when left to it. If any business feels that they wish to pay more to their employees than their market value, then good for them. They will need to determine if the market will bear the increased COGS or if they lose market share due to higher prices and ensuing consumer churn. Automation and technology does allow some workers to earn more by eliminating jobs of others. Perhaps I eliminate a bunch of $9 per hour (plus tax/ins/SS) cashiers and install a bunch of self-checkout aisles, I would employ people to watch video monitors to verify people aren't stealing. So, I could have a $12 per hour person watching, and another $12 per hour "detective" on the floor but did so by eliminating a dozen $9 per hour people
What you are describing is not distribution of wealth it is deciding what to pay your employees. Now..If you were taking money from one employee and giving it to another so that all employees were paid the same regardless of their efforts then you'd be distributing the wealth AND probably destroy your business. Like I said, you'd be distributing wealth if you paid all your employees the same wage regardless of their contribution. What you did is nothing more than a free market business decision. Where did I lie? And why do you have to be abusive in your tone? If your blood pressure is so sensitive, may I suggest you get medical help? - - - Updated - - - What you are describing is not distribution of wealth it is deciding what to pay your employees. Now..If you were taking money from one employee and giving it to another so that all employees were paid the same regardless of their efforts then you'd be distributing the wealth AND probably destroy your business. Like I said, you'd be distributing wealth if you paid all your employees the same wage regardless of their contribution. What you did is nothing more than a free market business decision. Where did I lie? And why do you have to be abusive in your tone? If your blood pressure is so sensitive, may I suggest you get medical help?
My narrative was rather simple. A consumption based economy must employ its own people, and then structure the economic model around that, if you want your own population to be able to work to thrive. So that means the trade policies have to be in line with that, as they once were. There was never a need for the high tech industry, or the electronics prior to that to be offshored. Unless you were looking for more corporate profit. For to say otherwise would be to say that no nation can produce what it consumes from toaster overs to computers. And that just isn't true. If you only look at a economic model that should strive to have the cheapest widgets, you will end up with our current model that cannot provide enough living wage jobs. Yeah, you get cheaper widgets, but you have to put people on welfare because they cannot find work making enough to live on. So my narrative is simply that a consumption based economy must employ its own people making what they consume, even as this does not allow corporations to max out profits. As FDR said, they must be satisfied with a reasonable profit. We have been fighting this battle for a long time. It is not impossible for the US to make what it consumes here, and employ its own people. For if it is impossible then capitalism fails, and must be replaced. It is as simple as that. And making what we consumed for living wages mostly, is what helped to create the largest middle class in world history when you add in the new technology that created more products that people wanted. We are not doing that anymore. If a new technology that can be used for a new consumer good is created here, it is shipped to less than a buck an hour labor elsewhere and then Americans are employed only to sell it for walmart wages. We did not used to do that. We made our own tvs at one time and they were expensive. Yet people still bought them, mainly by the stores financing them for a few months. But we employed our own. Who said it serves us better if we can buy one by using one paycheck, and not have to finance one, when by doing so it gives our own people jobs making them? My trouble is, I remember when we made most of what we consumed. And for anyone to tell me it is not possible today, is just absurd. NOW, you cannot do this and max out profits of corporations. So the truth is, gov't and corporations decided it is best for them if we allow them to max out their profits, and to hell with the people who have to earn a living. That is at the root of this, not some exotic economic theory. When you get away from basic economic sense, that we must make what we consume, all kinds of justifications will be pulled out in order to justify not doing that. And you will fool people into thinking we can no longer do that. But I recall when this crap started, when perot ran and tried to tell America what free trade would do. So, it was a choice, made by the GOP, with the help of Clinton, and now look at this economy. 100 million who will never have a living wage job again, and then do not forget this was a damned choice made by gov't on the behalf of corporations and banksters.
How much is kept by owners, corporations and how much is allowed to be kept by the workers who are doing the work, creating the income, which when accumulated becomes wealth is the distribution of income and wealth. You lied by attributing the distribution of income and wealth as nothing more than some socialist meme, who wants to distribute that income which becomes wealth when accumulated. As if only socialism and thereby a very negative thing, is involved. But all that is involved is how much greed is present in the top of the income creation equation. So, back before unions, owners in their lust for accumulating great wealth paid the people creating their own wealth very little, and kept most of the pie. How much of the pie is distributed between the top dog and the workers creates the distribution of income and therefore wealth. When our greedy men wanted to keep more of the income pie, and could not do it here, they moved offshore to exploit poor Chinese, after the Mexicans. For they could get away with paying very little, and keeping most of the pie for themselves. So, that is the kind of distribution that model created. On the other hand, when they were making here what we bought, they could not keep as much for themselves and had to pay their workers more, which gave you a different distribution. And that distribution helped to create our large middle class. Whereas in china, it isn't creating one when it comes to their factory workers. So we have seen 60 percent of middle class income and wealth move to the top dogs, and is no longer held in the middle. That is distribution upwards. And the change in economic models is what allowed this to happen. This stuff is so simple to understand. So that is what I meant. No offense intended to your personally. So the kind of economic model a nation has matters tremendously. It can mean the difference between having enough jobs to employ your own people and keeping them off of welfare, which should be the main goal of any economic model. We have lost our job creation engine by allowing corporations to buy what they call free trade, which is nothing but a device to offshore jobs to slave labor and then retain access to the consumer markets that making what we consumed actually created in the first place.
You chose to pay more for labor. Now, like any good religious nut, you want to force your moral views on everyone else. You'll exclaim that you aren't a religious nut, or not religious at all. So how else do you explain that you have the divine right to use the police powers of the state to implement your moral code?
No, I am trying to show that there is no law that says you must underpay the people who work for you. And that many businesses could not pay more, and the only reason they do not is because they are just greedy, and have no moral compass. I do not see that capitalism should be allowed to be amoral. You remind me of one of my competitors who called me names because I paid a living wage while that greedy bastard knew he could get away without having to pay one. If you want to be greedy and support those bastards that are, fine. But do not go and try to tell me that it has to be that way, that all of these people who work have to be paid not enough to live on, for its bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
You speak as if there is some over-arching power that should mandate how much workers make and how much profit and employer is allowed to keep. That is socialist thinking. Taking wealth away from one and giving it to another IS negative socialist behavior and it always starts when greed is defined as having 'too much' wealth. Unions are a government creation, nothing more nothing less. The only good thing unions did was make the workplace safe and that was taken over by OSHA. There is no need for unions anymore. All they do is inflate the cost of labor and goods at this point. You have to look a bit deeper into it, those corporations and manufacturing plants COULD do it here...BEFORE...draconian socialist, overreaching government policies that drove the cost of doing business up into the stratosphere. Socialist environmental policies, socialist employee polices that did virtually nothing for the employee, draconian taxation etc. are the reasons those companies went offshore. And I gave you the reasons for that. Companies and corporations can only exist by making a profit. They make their profit by selling goods and services. If their overhead so high (due to government overregulation and overreaching due to socialist policies) they cannot make what they consider to be an adequate profit they will go elsewhere and close their doors. (see Detroit). First off, there is no government definition of 'middle class' and there is no political consensus of it. Yes, politicians pander to it depending on their personal/political party propaganda but it has yet to be defined as to exact income. When you use such terms you are invoking socialist talking points. So you see, nothing of what you said has any proof at all. When you say someone is full of #%@1 that person will take offense. Think about it. We have lost our job creation engine exactly because of draconian socialist policies that have grown government and government regulations to insane proportions. You apparently cannot or refuse to see that and place all your ire on those who CREATE jobs. You said you had employees...What if, because of government regulations, you could no longer pay them what you thought they were worth without making your own family suffer?
There are serious economic problems when wealth distribution becomes too concentrated at the top. Many of these problems are easily observed by even the most ignorant. It is a myth that the wealthy use their wealth to make investments in capital improvements and productivity advances and new technologies and that they create jobs. They do not do that. What they do is invest their money in the stock market buying the stocks of companies that they think will bring them the greatest profits over the shortest time with a minimum of risk. The way they gauge that is by changes in the share price. Here is where the problem comes. As wealth becomes more concentrated more money is directed into the stock market. This inflow of money increases demand for shares, which increases prices. The rising stock market attracts ever more money, which stays in the market. The result of all this is less and less money for the rest of the economy, the economy of making and selling things and providing services, the economy where the jobs are. When people put their savings into a mutual fund instead of the local bank, the local bank has less money to lend and cannot finance that small business that wants to expand and cuts back on its mortgage lending. When increasing their share price over the short term is all that matters to companies they will cut expenses. They will eliminate employees and reduce or eliminate medium term investments to increase productivity and market share. This was a regular feature of the US economy during the gold standard era. New gold would be found and money would flood into the economy creating an economic boom. This boom would be exaggerated in the stock markets, which would soar and attract all the money. As money flooded into the stock market less and less would be available for the rest of the economy, loans would dry up, cash would become hard to obtain, prices would begin to fall and the economy would collapse, often suddenly in a panic of bank runs, where people would literally run to the bank to get their money out before it closed its doors. The US economy has been in the stage of economic stagnation for quite a while now and the concentration of wealth is indicated by the lack of employment and wage increases despite years of supposed economic growth. It is also indicated by the fact that all economic gains over the last 5 years have gone to the top 10%. Some small changes in the tax code could fix that, and redirect savings and wealth into the part of the economy that creates jobs and pays wages but far too many have bought into the meme that accumulated wealth needs to be protected at all costs or we will all lose our jobs. Where are we? Some 18th century factory town?
Well, I'll just put suggestion for here about the reason of human being by now. Man should think about burden, work hard, getting the scarcely resource? Or, man should think about wealthy life, the strategy to make great resource, efficient productivity in the world?
We could redistribute Americans' wealth to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world would just squander it like they did in post-apartheid South Africa. The post-apartheid regime, including Nelson Mandela, inherited tons of real estate, infrastructure, and wealth, only to (*)(*)(*)(*) it away on their ridiculous socialist ideas. Like Rhodesia: it was once the bread basket of Africa, and now has to import food. Why are there so many people in the world that cannot pull themselves up by the bootstrap and 'get on with the getting on'? And don't say because of white racist oppression. With the all the wars we have fought, all the billions of man-hours we have worked, all the financial depressions and recessions that wiped us all out, all the ruling elite oppression we endured, we still prospered. I have no sympathy for people who lay around in filth all day because they are too lazy to get their asses up and clean up. I remember after the earthquake in Haiti, they showed pictures of Haitians laying around on blankets in the middle of the ruins of Haiti complaining that 'we ain't got no one to help us.' Get your asses up and help yourselves!! They did the same thing after Katrina. You see it in the refuge camps in Africa. People laying around in filth. Lazy, lazy, lazy, and you want to take what we spent billions of man-hours building and "redistribute it to these people? F*** you!
You can work harder than improved robots that will be made in the future? And some people would think about resource for their pets each of themselves.
How much the owner keeps and how much is shared with those that do the work should be determined by collective bargaining. For the income creation equation depends upon the worker as well as the owner. When this is the rule capitalism has to operate under you get prosperity for the workers. You create a middle class instead of just having a working poor class as we had before unions and collective bargaining. This greatly affects how income is distributed within a society, an economy. Very democratic instead of oligarchic. All ships rise, instead of what you see today in America, with the GOP Neoliberalism, which the corporate owned dems also now support. We have lost our job creation engines because of what is called free trade, but in fact is the tool that allowed corporations to offshore to exploit the poor, that we would not allow them to exploit here because of labor laws. This was created under Bush, but before it was ready to sign, Clinton beat him. So, Clinton committed treason upon the people the democratic party had represented since FDR, and joined in with the GOP Neoliberalism. That was the start of losing our job creation engines, making less of what we consume. Then came the other free trade agreements, which put the knell in that coffin. It would be helpful if you would actually pay attention to what happened instead of what you just make up on the fly. The election of Reagan in 80 put us on this deindustrialization path, not because of taxes, not because of epa regulations, but because of the cost of labor. Corporations can only max out profits if they minimize labor costs which they could not do here in America because of unions, and because we have higher living standards than Mexicans or Chinese. This ain't rocket science man. I was in business, manufacturing when this first began. After I got out and retired, a couple of my competitors moved to china, for the cheap labor. The people in my sector that were left here, could not compete with that Chinese labor, and they had to either move too, or shut down. Some just shut down. So don't be a pissing on my leg and trying to tell me it is raining. Won't fly with this retired business owner who actually knows how the real world works. The offshoring of our job creation engines was done to max out corporate profits, by the gov't allowing them to move offshore, and by the gov't giving them full market access to the same market they always served. LOL... Greed drove this. Nothing else.
