Gov’t and Gov’t mandates pay a relatively small portion of college education, retirement, e cmergency medical expenses so, people pay less taxes etc. but have to save.
-and-
They can get 7% on money they put in the bank.
Scenario 2:
Workers’ ablity to save has been taxed away. They have a reduced need to save for things like retirement, education or emergency medical.
-and-
If they decide to put money in the bank anyway it typically pays less then 2%
We both know scenario 2 results in less saving by the working classes.
Ergo more of Scenario 2 type stuff we adopt ,the greater wealth disparity becomes.
I think Gov. does not produce anything except in this case, today, Gov. created a massive FRAUD.
Everything they did was a massive distribution of wealth.
Thus the reason they’re squilling now like stuck piglets.
Trump is taking candy out of their mouth.
Go get them tiger.
Just food for thought for the left who always cries for government to do more to fix their so called wealth gap. One man in history should show what happens when government intervenes his name is Rockefeller. Government steps in only after the fact to bust up a supposed monopoly. Instead rockefeller was able to capitalize on a bigger share of the market. He beat his competition to oblivion thanks to the government.
Back to the fixed size pie argument. In order for the rich to get richer, they need to steal from the middle and lower classes.
There is no fixed size pie.
The study itself makes lots of assumptions that I don’t find to be credible. It basically implies that either government would interfere to create the equity or that human beings would suddenly stop being human. In either case, the study assumes the growth we’ve seen over the years would be the same or better. I strongly believe it would be anemic and that we wouldn’t be nowhere near where are today in terms of effeciency or productivity.
Do we? If the pay of all company executives was distributed to the lower grade workers, how much would there saleries increase?
More likely the effect you are talking about is due to fewer complex or heavy assembly manual jobs in favor of advanced technology and service jobs. Massive illegal immigration doesn’t help those wages either.
You are seeking a nineteenth century solution to a twenty first century problem.
In some ways, yes. In the USA much of the compensation for CEO’s and upper management is based on the stock price. the insatiable drive to grow double digits causes, as you said, short term decisions vs long term strategies. Look as what happen to Boeing. Stock buy backs should be illegal for most of the 20th century,until 1982.
CEO-to-worker pay ratio in the United States is about 300X In the EU, it is about 100X
A better work life balance would be better for most people.
Job growth has been notably greater under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents since the early 1980s. Looking at the last seven presidents, job growth totaled over 50 million under Democratic presidents compared to only 17 million under Republican presidents.Oct 7, 2024
CNN reported in September 2020 that GDP grew 4.1% on average under Democrats, versus 2.5% under Republicans, from 1945 through the second quarter of 2020.
They basically are…and with the CU ruling by the SCOTUS, they can literally buy influence on laws and tax rates, legally. Elon has tremendous influence in the government, only cost him 250 million.
