# Bottom up economics - trickledown doesn't work **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626 "2011-03-05T23:00:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/101 "2011-03-10T10:01:42Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > GAH. Norway is so unlike the U.S. it is not even funny. They have a [population](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:NOR&dl=en&hl=en&q=norway+population)that is roughly 1/2 of [Los Angeles](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=county:06037&dl=en&hl=en&q=los+angeles+population). They have huge amounts of [mineral wealth](http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-energy-data.cfm?fips=NO). They are the 116th country in terms of [population](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population)and the second largest exporter of natural gas and the sixth largest exporter of oil. They also export electricity. > > In other words, they have a small population with large amounts of resources. And cash. > > At least try and use an apples to apples comparison. > > Slee So you are saying I have to find a country that is exactly like the US but has some other economic system to make a valid comparison? My, that is setting the bar very high. Perhaps you are trying to say that the energy wealth of Finland is what creates the entrepreneurial culture? That makes no sense of course. There are plenty of other countries that are net exporters of oil that are miserable Third World hellholes run by wealthy dictators and a small oligarchy consisting of their family and friends, with everyone else poor as hell. Instead Finland invests in its people, who return that investment with a vibrant entrepreneurial economy. Taxes are high, but the risk of failure is small. Life is good. America could stand to emulate that. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/102 "2011-03-10T12:44:49Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > **The Stimulus Package** - The Democrats claim to be following the Keynesian prescription for fixing the economy. Well, Keynes would tell you that money and jobs that go to the unemployed will be a hell of a lot more stimulative than money which goes to the middle and upper classes. > > To that end, Republicans tried to get a temporary waiver of the Davis-Bacon act, so that the poor and unemployed could be paid to help with infrastructure projects. Hiring two unemployed workers at $15/hr is a hell of a lot more stimulative than hiring a union worker at $30/hr. Not only that, but the extra supply of labor might have sped up some of the projects. This is really not what “Keynes would tell you”. In general Keynesians are pretty skeptical about wage reductions as a way of reducing unemployment during a recession. For one thing there isn’t a lot of evidence that 15$/hour workers consume a lot more than 30$/hour workers. Perhaps a bit more but probably not that much. Secondly your example assumes that the demand for labour is fairly elastic, halving the wage rate doubles the demand. This is pretty unrealistic in the short run. If the demand is somewhat inelastic, total wages would go down reducing demand. This would be much closer to a typical Keynesian argument that what you are saying. > [@](#): > > Obama seemed to be a genuine education reformer. He was in favor of charter schools, and gave speeches where he actually blamed teacher’s unions for opposing merit pay. Good for him. That is, until he got to Washington and got properly schooled on who a Democrat may not piss off. Then suddenly education reform kind of dropped by the wayside, didn’t it? ``` This is pretty much the opposite of what I have heard from the likes of [David Brooks](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/opinion/04brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks): ``` > [@](#): > > First, Obama and the education secretary, Arne Duncan, set up a contest. They put down $4.5 billion in Race to the Top money. They issued some general guidelines about what kind of reforms states would have to adopt to get the money. And then they fired the starting gun. > > Reformers in at least 23 states have passed reform laws in hopes of getting some of the dough. Some of the state laws represent incremental progress and some represent substantial change. The administration has hung tough, demanding real reform in exchange for dollars. Over all, there’s been a tremendous amount of movement in a brief time. > > This is not heavy-handed Washington command-and-control. This is Washington energizing diverse communities of reformers, locality by locality, and giving them more leverage in their struggles against the defenders of the status quo. > [@](#): > > Second, the Obama administration used the power of the presidency to break through partisan gridlock. Over the past decade, teacher unions and their allies have become proficient in beating back Republican demands for more charters, accountability and choice. But Obama has swung behind a series of bipartisan reformers who are also confronting union rigidity. > > In Rhode Island, the Central Falls superintendent, Frances Gallo, fired all the teachers at one failing school. The unions fought back. Obama sided with Gallo, sending shock waves nationwide. If the president had the guts to confront a sacred Democratic interest group in order to jolt a failing school, then change was truly in the air. Gallo got the concessions she needed to try to improve that school. So Obama is doing exactly what you say he isn’t: taking on powerful unions to reform education in failing schools. > [@](#): > > In addition, a lot of the stimulus money that was supposed to be for new infrastructure wound up being siphoned off by the public employees unions in the form of pay and benefit increases Do you have a source for this? Frankly it sounds like a BS right-wing talking point. > [@](#): > > 53 billion dollars for high-speed rail. Guess who doesn’t ride high-speed rail? The poor. Guess who likes high speed rail? The unions So what? This may not help the poor much but I don’t see how it hurts them. It just means that the Democrats comprise a broad range of constituencies coming from both the poor and the middle class and have to balance their different demands. Over the decades the Democrats have done a lot to help the poor as well: Medicaid, Head Start, EITC expansion etc. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/103 "2011-03-10T13:49:25Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Of course you don’t GIVE the money away. You set up a social safety net for the poor so they can survive, basic food housing and health care taken care of. Hell if you set up single payer health care for EVERYONE you could save money like all the SENSIBLE countries do. > > Plus of course if health care is not tied to employment, businesses are relieved of that expense. > > To spur employment, since workers have become SO much more productive of late, instead of letting corporation work one person for 60 hours a week, set the work week to 30 hours a week by law, with harsh penalties for overtime, forcing businesses to greatly increase the number of people they employ. This would eliminate the unemployment problem and also make wages increase, since workers will once again be at a premium. Plus the people who only work 30 hours a week will be have the leisure, and thanks to the higher wages, the money to start side businesses and new businesses, giving them a path for their aspirations cause you know, not everybody likes flipping burgers and changing bedpans. So, you have no real plan? Just a reinforcement of the “social safety net” system that is already a failure, in terms of creating and maintaining economic and educational growth. Re: mandating a 30-hour work week - what business is it of yours how much people want to work? Unless, of course, you want to further drag everyone into a dull lower-middle class, where no one is allowed to work harder than their peers. I guess that counts as “fair” :rolleyes: And a newsflash for you - most people who are poor have not the skills or the drive to open a new business. Based on your attitude, I would assume as much - your refusal to recognize how hard and risky it is to open and maintain a business is obvious by your snide dismissal of “businesses.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/104 "2011-03-10T13:54:14Z")
> [@Agnostic\_Pagan](#): > > How is it wrong? It was wrong in the sense of not corresponding with reality. You claimed > [@](#): > > Their 12-hour days are not comparable to the 12-hour days that those at the bottom have to work - often in two jobs, neither with sufficient benefits. As it turns out, “those at the bottom” typically do not work 12 hour days. Almost three quarters of them, in fact. Your claim, in other words, that those at the bottom have to work 12 hour days was wrong. Incorrect. Not true. Other than valid. At variance with the established facts. Complete horseshit. Not sure I can make it any clearer than that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/105 "2011-03-10T15:34:38Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > To spur employment, since workers have become SO much more productive of late, instead of letting corporation work one person for 60 hours a week, set the work week to 30 hours a week by law, with harsh penalties for overtime, forcing businesses to greatly increase the number of people they employ. This would eliminate the unemployment problem and also make wages increase, since workers will once again be at a premium. Plus the people who only work 30 hours a week will be have the leisure, and thanks to the higher wages, the money to start side businesses and new businesses, giving them a path for their aspirations cause you know, not everybody likes flipping burgers and changing bedpans. I know this wasn’t quoted at me, but if this is type of vigilance that you advocate, then you will surely run a disastrous economy far faster and with far more upheaval then the way things are currently going. Every “liberal” idea of improving the economy always starts with hamstringing productivity and ends with stifling innovation. You should add another bureaucracy for the trifecta. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/106 "2011-03-10T15:59:28Z")
> [@Agnostic\_Pagan](#): > > Sorry, he lost all credibility when he claimed progressives were behind such ideas as eugenics and segregation. Eugenics was based on faulty science and had support from all sides of the spectrum until that theory was discredited. Its current proponents are definitely not progressive. And to claim that progressives supported segregation is bullshit. It was progressives that ended it. Did labor unions refuse minorities membership, yep. Did Woodrow Wilson re-segregate the civil service, yep. And that is because racism was rampant and considered the norm long before progressives ever became a political force in this country. Unless you’re taking the Glenn Beck position – contemporary progressivism is identical with the early 20th century flavor – you’re mixing apples and oranges. Certainly society as a whole was racist in the early 20th century, and certainly the strains of progressivism in various eras has done good things as well as bad; that doesn’t alter the fact that early 20th century progressivism was indeed supportive of eugenics. Here’s a suggestion: it’s a lot easier to understand the world when you stop feeling obligated to defend everything a perceived “us” has done, and impugning everything from a perceived “them.” > [@](#): > > As for his opening statement - that government is stifling entrepreneurship through over-taxation and over-regulation, how does that differ from my OP? It doesn’t. > [@](#): > > But we do need some level of taxation and regulation. I don’t think many would disagree. > [@](#): > > It is one thing to advocate for temporary targeted relief, and removal of policies that have been demonstrated not to work. It is another to call for their wholesale cuts leaving only the bare minimum. We had that regulatory system. And it led to the Gilded Age and sowed the seeds for the Great Depression. > > And so we created a new regulatory scheme which worked very well throughout the 50’s and 60’s until shocks like the oil crisis and the Vietnam War decimated the macroeconomic conditions that scheme created. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling there were a _lot_ of changes that affected society over the last few hundred years. I’m not going to get into a historical argument, but suffice it to say I think your rendering a bit simplistic. > [@](#): > > And rather than address those issues, the administrations since, starting with Reagan and including Clinton, gutted those regulations and refused to effectively enforce what was left, especially under Bush Jr. And this is where you are completely at odds with the facts. Please see [http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/WP0836\_RSP\_The\_Incredible\_Growth\_of\_the\_Regulators\_Budget.pdf](http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/WP0836_RSP_The_Incredible_Growth_of_the_Regulators_Budget.pdf) > [@](#): > > And I have little sympathy for the gypsy cab driver who decided to flagrantly disregard the law instead of campaigning to change those laws or use his income to try and become legitimate. He is lucky he only spent a week in jail. And this, frankly, reveals a hell of lot. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/107 "2011-03-10T17:46:59Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I didn’t say a word about Walker. We’re talking about regulations that Democrats support but which act to protect the powerful against the poor and weak. Your attempt to avoid the issue with your usual diversionary tactics is noted. The success of the stimulus package in holding down unemployment is at this point pretty well established. The reason I brought up Walker is that he is using exactly the same tactic you are - cutting revenues with the tax cut diode and then trying to pit the various groups who are hurt against each other. The tactic is dishonest and despicable. And counting Republicans as protectors of the poor and weak would be insane even for Glen Beck. They did really well under a Republican Congress and Administration, didn’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/108 "2011-03-10T20:21:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Your attempt to avoid the issue with your usual diversionary tactics is noted. What diversionary tactics would those be? You’re the one who tried to change the subject to Walker in Minnesota, when I was talking about general trends. And because I don’t shift with you, I’m the one using diversionary tactics? > [@](#): > > The success of the stimulus package in holding down unemployment is at this point pretty well established. No, it’s really not. You guys keep trumpeting the CBO’s continual updates as proof, despite being shown that all the CBO can do is re-run the models given to them that they used for the original estimates. Since it’s the models themselves that are in question, the CBO’s estimates are useless for this debate. In fact, we have a situation where the original estimates for unemployment with and without the stimulus turned out to be grossly wrong. The pro-stimulus folks immediately blamed it on initial conditions that were worse than anticipated, rather than on a failure of the stimulus itself. In other words, the stimulus worked and unemployment would have been much worse without it. But in fact, there have been a number of papers from good economists in the past two years examining the assumptions behind the stimulus and finding them wanting. There are a number of papers that have found multiplier effects lower than the estimates baked into the models. It’s true that conditions appear to have been somewhat worse than anticipated, but it’s not clear at all whether they make up the sum total of the difference between the stimulus estimate and reality. You don’t get to claim that this is a closed issue. Economists will be debating the value of the stimulus for years. > [@](#): > > The reason I brought up Walker is that he is using exactly the same tactic you are - cutting revenues with the tax cut diode and then trying to pit the various groups who are hurt against each other. The tactic is dishonest and despicable. And counting Republicans as protectors of the poor and weak would be insane even for Glen Beck. They did really well under a Republican Congress and Administration, didn’t they? Oh, I see. So you don’t believe that there’s a limited pool of funds available for government operations without raising taxes or cutting benefits on the middle class? Is ‘the rich’ such a bottomless well of potential government funding that 53 billion in high speed rail won’t crowd out any other government funding? Or that Wisconsin can close a multi-billion dollar biennial deficit without cutting any services, just by taxing the rich more? If you agree that you can’t close the gap with taxes on the rich, then it’s a zero-sum game to an extent - any dollar that goes to the benefit package of a public employee is a dollar that won’t be spent on other government programs. So tell me - which other programs in Wisconsin would you cut so that the public unions could have their benefits? Or do you agree with the benefit cuts? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/109 "2011-03-10T21:42:34Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > This is really not what “Keynes would tell you”. In general Keynesians are pretty skeptical about wage reductions as a way of reducing unemployment during a recession. Isn’t that because they believe wages are sticky and hard to reduce, and not that reductions wouldn’t be useful? But we’re not talking about wage reductions here. We’re talking about new jobs. What’s more stimulative - hiring two people at $15 each, or hiring one at $30 and leaving the other unemployed? And since the unemployed person is probably collecting government unemployment benefits anyway, wouldn’t it be more cost effective to put that person to work? > [@](#): > > Secondly your example assumes that the demand for labour is fairly elastic, halving the wage rate doubles the demand. I said no such thing. Maybe offering jobs to non-union workers at half the rate would have resulted in a 10% increase in the labor pool. I don’t know. Either way, it would have been more stimulative. > [@](#): > > This is pretty unrealistic in the short run. If the demand is somewhat inelastic, total wages would go down reducing demand. This would be much closer to a typical Keynesian argument that what you are saying. But wait - if total wages went down, then you’d have more money left over in your stimulus that you could spend elsewhere. The same amount of money is going to be spent in either case - but in the non-union case, more unemployed people get put to work. Keeping people in the workforce is a big deal, since the longer someone stays unemployed, the harder it is to re-enter the workforce. So this would be a social good and would help speed the recovery once more jobs become available. Plus, money given to a person who is unemployed will see a greater proportion spent than money given to a worker who already makes an above-median salary. But there’s another fairly large factor that comes into play when you demand that ‘prevailing wages’ be paid - it slows down implementation, because the government has to do time-consuming prevailing wage analysis in each region where it wants to do a project before it can budget the project. For example, the Weatherization Assistance Program had $5 billion in stimulus funds attached to it. Under the Bush Administration the WAP was exempted from Davis-Bacon requirements, but that requirement was added in the stimulus bill. As a result, states had to delay implementation because contractors could not figure out how much they’d have to pay employees until the state completed prevailing wage analysis. This is what the GAO said about this in its interim report on the stimulus at the end of 2009: > [@Government Account Office](#): > > the Recovery Act appropriated $5 billion over 3 years for the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program. However, most states have not begun to weatherize homes, partly because of concerns about prevailing wage rate requirements. Here’s an article from [Politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/452/weatherize-1-million-homes-per-year/) showing how this program has been tied up because of the unions: > [@](#): > > We ended our last update on President Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to weatherize 1 million homes per year by noting that we’d revisit the ruling should we find that the program fell short of its goals. > > Over the last several weeks, multiple readers have e-mailed to ask if we’re planning to revisit the promise, since reports were coming out that the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) wasn’t living up to its expectations. > > The most telling account of the program’s progress is a report released by the U.S. Department of Energy in February 2010. The report provides two key conclusions. First, out of the $4.73 billion that the stimulus act provided for weatherization work, only $368.2 million had been spent. That’s less than 8 percent. Second, of the 10 highest grant recipients, only two completed more than two percent of the planned units. Texas, for example, had planned to weatherize 33,908 units. As of Feb. 16, 2010, it had not weatherized any. > > “In short,” notes the report, "the Nation has not, to date, realized the potential economic benefits of the $5 billion in Recovery Act funds allocated to the Weatherization Program. The job creation impact of what was considered to be one of the Department’s most ‘shovel ready’ projects has not materialized. The article goes on to identify the reasons why this program failed as a stimulus. Among them: > [@](#): > > First, because of a Depression-era law known as the Davis-Bacon Act, recipients of the weatherization funds had to pay the laborers a locally “prevailing wage.” Problem was, very few states and counties actually knew what this prevailing wage was. In June 2009, the Secretary of Energy released a memo urging the fund recipients to begin the weatherization work anyway, while the Department of Labor was working out the wage determinants. If it turned out that the workers were underpaid, the state would pay them retroactively. Most states, however, “concerned with avoiding perceived administrative problems and burdens associated with retroactive adjustments to wages,” chose not to begin the projects until the wage rates were formally established. It’s pretty clear that the unions managed to pull this waiver, and in doing so they delayed by a number of months the implementation of a stimulus plan that was supposed to employ 87,000 workers. And that’s just one program. Many other infrastructure projects would have been delayed for the same reason. Furthermore, plenty of people made the argument that this would happen before it was signed into law. It was quite obvious that prevailing wage requirements would damage the effectiveness of the stimulus. The Democrats put it in anyway, because they answer to the unions. > [@](#): > > This is pretty much the opposite of what I have heard from the likes of [David Brooks](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/opinion/04brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks): > > So Obama is doing exactly what you say he isn’t: taking on powerful unions to reform education in failing schools. I already gave Obama credit as an honest reformer - The problem is that the Democrats in Congress are decidedly not reformers. The only way he could get any reform at all was to wave a 4 billion dollar carrot in front of the teachers. True meaningful reform in the basic way schools are operated and in allowing for private charter schools is pretty much stonewalled. I give lots of credit to Obama for his efforts on school reform, and I’ve posted on that in the past. But all he can do at this point is offer rhetoric, because meaningful reform can’t get through congress or the bureaucrats at the Dept. of Education. The demand for charter schools is so high that openings in the current ones are given out by lottery, and there are always many applicants for each open position. These schools are having the most effect in the inner cities where the public schools are godawful. This should be a priority of the government, and Republicans are in lockstep in favor of this kind of reform. It’s Democrats who are blocking the move to more charter schools. > [@](#): > > Do you have a source for this? Frankly it sounds like a BS right-wing talking point. [Stimulus Funds net Wayland Teachers $1250 lump sum](http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=2EEFB51F6587639BAF426D53AEF8C695?diaryId=22278) [Two Americas - Public Sector gains in recession](http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_01.htm) > [@](#): > > During the recession, public employees have continued to see strong wage growth, well ahead of the private sector. From the first quarter of 2007 through the last quarter of 2009, the average value of hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose by 9.8 percent for employees of state and local governments, compared to 6.9 percent in the private sector.[2] After adjusting for inflation, public employees have seen a rise in real hourly income over this period, while private employees have not. [Manhattan Moment: Obama puts public sector employees ahead of private sector](http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/457996) > [@](#): > > Obama’s infusion of federal aid to states and localities didn’t just “save” jobs. It also pumped up the paychecks of heavily unionized public employees who already earn more, on average, than the people who pay their salaries. > > While private sector wages were dropping along with employment in 2009, the average annual wage for state government employees was up in 45 states, including fiscal basket cases such as Illinois, Michigan, New York, and New Jersey. The average local government wage rose at least slightly in every state, even crisis-wracked California. The stimulus helped make it all possible. > > This result ran counter to the advice of the pro-stimulus economists at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), among others. “Public sector wage increases should be avoided as they are not well-targeted, difficult to reverse, and similar to [income] transfers in their effectiveness,” they wrote in a report issued just before Obama took office. The stimulus act was written to encourage this - it specifically allowed stimulus funds to be used to ‘retain’ jobs, which gave Democrats and union leaders in various states wiggle room to give out wage increases and claim that they had to do that to prevent teachers from quitting or leaving the state. In addition, the stimulus act accounting allowed for a wage increase to be treated as a percentage of a job. So if you give 100,000 people a 10% raise, you ‘created’ 10,000 jobs by the logic of the stimulus. This also gave state governments the cover they needed to get away with using stimulus money to increase pay of public workers: [MSNBC Stimulus Watch: Pay raise counted as saved job](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33619884/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/) > [@](#): > > About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren’t saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren’t saved. > > But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs. > > “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,” HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said. Really? How do you save a ‘portion of a job’ by giving someone a raise? Again, it’s very interesting that the language of the stimulus allowed government to funnel pay raises to public union employees, then cover their tracks by counting the raises as ‘jobs saved’. > [@](#): > > The latest stimulus report, released Friday, significantly overstates the number of jobs spared with money from programs serving families and children, mostly the Head Start preschool program. The report shows hundreds of the programs used nearly $323 million to provide pay raises and other benefits to their existing employees. And yet, Democrats stick by the claim that the stimulus did exactly what they predicted it to do, despite reams of evidence that it was badly managed, inefficient, that a lot of it went to pay increases for people already making above the national median income, and that many of the programs that were supposed to directly create jobs were delayed or mismanaged and never created anything like the number of jobs they were supposed to. Couple that with accounting chicanery, and it’s a mess. > [@](#): > > So what? This may not help the poor much but I don’t see how it hurts them. It hurts them because of opportunity cost. 53 billion dollars is not chump change, and that’s just the federal government’s contribution. The state governments are also supposed to kick in a bunch of money. The states are all in debt and struggling to find ways to balance the budget _now_. Programs for the poor are being cut. Saying this has nothing to do with the poor is like saying that Republicans pushing for a tax cut on the rich has nothing to do with the poor. In an era where government is swimming in debt and revenue sources are drying up, you need to treat the budget as a zero-sum game. 53 billion ‘invested’ in high speed rail is 53 billion that won’t be spent on other government programs or applied to the debt. I suppose if you believe that all of this can be funded and the deficit fixed and the debt paid down if only the rich are made to pay their ‘fair share’, then you can claim that HSR doesn’t hurt the poor. But that would be a foolish claim. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/110 "2011-03-10T22:56:03Z")
[QUOTE=sleestak] Yet again we come to the basis of your philosophy ‘Do it my way or else…’ even when it hurts the poor. [/QUOTE] How the heck is stating that if you disagree with the law that the proper course to advocate changing it considered “Do it my way or else…” Are you even familiar with democratic governance? And the difference between civil disobedience and criminality is that former breaks the law to highlight its injustice and campaigns to abolish the law, so their acts are no longer illegal. The latter seeks to break the law only for their personal benefit and could care less if their actions become legal or not. And I have stated what the basis of my philosophy is several times, but you can continue to chase ghosts that only exist in your own mind. [QUOTE=sleestak] Serious question. Do you think that the fact a cab medallion goes for $600,000 is a reasonable price to run a cab? If so, how do you reconcile that with ‘we need to give them to people at the bottom to allow them to earn non-wage income and not rely on the labor market.’? [/QUOTE] Serious question. Do you honestly think the $600,000 is the average price for a cab medallion, especially in the jurisdictions where the gypsy driver was operating? As to whether $600,000 is a fair price for a New York medallion, well, that price is determined by future cash flows and all the other standard business valuation techniques. For all I know, that could be cheap compared to the future earnings it would enable. [QUOTE=sleestak] Second, how do you know that the cab driver was not working towards changing the law? [/QUOTE] No evidence was presented in that short blurb. If there is evidence that he was, then it was a total journalistic fail on the part of _Reason_, which does not help their credibility either. [QUOTE=Shodan] As it turns out, “those at the bottom” typically do not work 12 hour days. Almost three quarters of them, in fact. Your claim, in other words, that those at the bottom have to work 12 hour days was wrong. Incorrect. Not true. Other than valid. At variance with the established facts. Complete horseshit. [/QUOTE] Yet you accept without evidence the claim that three quarters or more of those at the top work 12 hour days, ignore the substantial claim that those who do work 12 hour days at the bottom work harder than those at the top who supposedly work the equivalent hours, and ignore the inference that no matter how many hours worked, labor done by the poor takes more of a toll on them than the labor done by those at the top over equivalent hours. The claim was never that _al_l the poor work 12 hour days, or that they _must_ work 12 days, but those that do have to work 12 days, or 8 hours or 2 hours, generally work harder than those at the top. I’ve spent time on both sides of the spectrum. I know which side made me collapse in bed as soon as I got home, and it was not the side where I spent the majority of my time at a desk or in meetings. And I know which side that if I got hurt or injured, that I hoped it happened on the job since at least worker’s comp was available. Health benefits certainly weren’t. So I do smell horseshit, but it ain’t coming from me. [QUOTE=furt] Unless you’re taking the Glenn Beck position – contemporary progressivism is identical with the early 20th century flavor – you’re mixing apples and oranges. [/QUOTE] Which is exactly what the author in the video did, and is what I challenged. And while progressives have discarded social Darwinism, the same is not true of conservatives. Hell, that is the major foundation of their platform. Only those fit to earn a living are entitled to receive one. And I am sure that the world gets easier to understand when one stops challenging the misinformation and outright lies by one’s opponents, lies such as those by that author. Sadly, the understanding will have little to no correlation to reality. > [@](#): > > Call me crazy, but I have a feeling there were a lot of changes that affected society over the last few hundred years. I’m not going to get into a historical argument, but suffice it to say I think your rendering a bit simplistic. Good thing I did not go back over the last few hundred years, but just the last few decades. And since this is a message board, and not a research conference, simplistic is generally the best we get. And libertarians should be careful who they call simplistic. > [@](#): > > And this is where you are completely at odds with the facts. > > Please see [http://mercatus.org/sites/default/fi...ors\_Budget.pdf](http://mercatus.org/sites/default/fi...ors_Budget.pdf) Budget and staffing levels have increased, barely in pace with GDP or population growth, but not enough to ensure effective enforcement of the regulations they monitor. Several agencies barely have the resources to do that monitoring. And the size of the police force doesn’t matter if all they do is sit at their desk and eat donuts, or conversely is the crime rate increases even faster that the number of officers. And similar effects have occurred over the the last decades. And the problem is only exacerbated at the state and local levels. Staffing levels are one the major complaints of most regulators, along with the size of their enforcement budget. [QUOTE=Sateryn76] And a newsflash for you - most people who are poor have not the skills or the drive to open a new business. Based on your attitude, I would assume as much - your refusal to recognize how hard and risky it is to open and maintain a business is obvious by your snide dismissal of “businesses.” [/QUOTE] Newflash - a lot more poor people do have the skills and drive to open a new business then you appear to give them credit for. Measuring the informal economy is always difficult, since one of the main purposes is avoid reporting requirements and it operates primarily on a cash or barter basis, but estimates show it ranges from 10% to as high as 25% of GDP, and about an equal percentage of the population working in that sector. [PDF.](http://www.fieldus.org/projects/pdf/InformalEconomy.pdf) A large number of successful small businesses were also started by immigrants with few skills. A major reason why is that those immigrant communities are great in helping newcomers get established. Teaching those skills and developing that drive are not that difficult, as several micro-business development programs have shown. What is lacking is the access to start up funds and operating capital until they are established, and the willingness to scale up those programs to make them available to the majority of the population and offer them a viable alternative to becoming a wage laborer. And even established firms are having difficulty to expand their businesses since the banks are hoarding their cash and are less willing to loan funds.[Cite](http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/cb/articles/?id=1933). Promoting policies that capture even half of the informal economy would spur major job growth and increase tax revenue. A majority of those earners do not pay FICA and other payroll taxes on those incomes, even though many do work in legitimate jobs and work long enough to qualify for benefits. Benefits that will be lower since they are short-changing themselves now since that supplemental income is needed to make ends meet now. Plus I doubt they have high expectations of living to retirement and being able to quit working. Ain’t no point in saving for a rainy day, when every day is a downpour. Again, the goal is not to shift the entire poor, working or not, into become self-earners, but enable those who are capable or willing to do so, and thus help relive unemployment for those that want to remain wage earners by increasing the number of legitimate employers and decreasing the total number of job seekers. And it is worth removing distortions that prevent that shift, but it is also worth promoting incentives to encourage it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/111 "2011-03-11T01:31:54Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > So, you have no real plan? Just a reinforcement of the “social safety net” system that is already a failure, in terms of creating and maintaining economic and educational growth. No, I mean to replace/shore up a social safety net that is a failure at keeping people healthy and sheltered. Food is not a failure, overall, in most places, but it’s slowly heading that way. The idea of the social safety net is not to create and maintain economic growth, it’s to keep people alive and healthy while unemployed, so they can participate in economic growth in boom times, not being dead or seriously ill. > [@](#): > > Re: mandating a 30-hour work week - what business is it of yours how much people want to work? Unless, of course, you want to further drag everyone into a dull lower-middle class, where no one is allowed to work harder than their peers. I guess that counts as “fair” :rolleyes: Somehow I doubt people will be clamoring for more work at the same wage. Call me a cynic! I suppose I should have specified, the wages would be the same for the 30-hour week as for the old 40-hour week. We’ve asked employees to work more productively, and in many cases, longer hours for the same pay, now it’s time to ask employers to take a little hit. I know, awfullest thing in the world to make management instead of labor to take a hit, would you like me to take out my itty-bitty violin to serenade you as you grieve? And if you’d read my post more carefully, you’d see that people who want more out of their lives could use their free time to educate themselves more, start new businesses, etc. Hell even the people who have no real ambition could spend more time with their families … a great thing for society now that both spouses in a family work for a living, typically. The benefits here could be awesome! > [@](#): > > And a newsflash for you - most people who are poor have not the skills or the drive to open a new business. Based on your attitude, I would assume as much - your refusal to recognize how hard and risky it is to open and maintain a business is obvious by your snide dismissal of “businesses.” But many have the skills and the drive to study, especially if they can do so cheaply at a community college. And I do recognize how hard and risky it is to open and maintain a business, I want it to be considerably LESS difficult and LESS risky so more people can participate in this capitalism thing I hear so much about on the Dope from conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/112 "2011-03-11T01:35:17Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > I know this wasn’t quoted at me, but if this is type of vigilance that you advocate, then you will surely run a disastrous economy far faster and with far more upheaval then the way things are currently going. > > Every “liberal” idea of improving the economy always starts with hamstringing productivity and ends with stifling innovation. You should add another bureaucracy for the trifecta. I am sure there were people who said the same thing when the work week was reduced from 60 hours to 40 hours back in the day. Doom and gloom, sky is falling, peasants are revolting! Yawn. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/113 "2011-03-11T17:34:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > But wait - if total wages went down, then you’d have more money left over in your stimulus that you could spend elsewhere. This assumes that money saved by paying lower wages is immediately spent on new projects. Given the shortage of shovel ready projects this may not happen and the money may not be spent for a while. The choice may be between creating 10 jobs at $15 today and perhaps more spending later and 8 jobs at $30 today. You can make a case for either and the idea that Keynesian arguments necessarily dictate the first isn’t really true Your other point about Davis-Bacon delaying implementation may be true for some programs but I wonder how widespread it is. From the same GAO report that you quote > [@](#): > > For those programs that are newly subject to Davis-Bacon requirements, officials had mixed views on the impact of these requirements on program costs and goal achievement. In some cases, officials said Davis-Bacon requirements would have little or no impact on program costs for a few reasons, such as (1) the program having a small amount of construction activities, (2) prevailing wage rates that were in line with expectations, and (3) companies’ previous experience with weekly payrolls. Still I would agree that Davis-Bacon could have been suspended for at least a few programs like the WAP. > [@](#): > > I give lots of credit to Obama for his efforts on school reform, and I’ve posted on that in the past. But all he can do at this point is offer rhetoric, because meaningful reform can’t get through congress or the bureaucrats at the Dept. of Education. This is just not true. First of all I would dispute that Race to the Top is some kind of giveaway. As Brooks says it offers money only in return for real reform. Secondly Arne Duncan is also a reformist and he runs the Department of Education and has certainly done more than offer rhetoric. For [example](http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-secretary-arne-duncan-announces-twelve-grants-50-million-charter-schoo): > [@](#): > > U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced 12 charter school grants totaling $50 million for charter management organizations to replicate and expand high-quality charter schools that have demonstrated success. I think what this education reform shows is that Democratic administrations are willing to take on core Democratic interest groups in the interests of good economic policy. Obviously they don’t do this all the time otherwise those interest groups wouldn’t remain part of the Democratic party and you have to balance good policy with good politics to get anything done. However this has happened before as well. Clinton defied unions to get NAFTA passed. He decided on the advice of his economists to focus early in his administration to focus on deficit reduction at the expense of greater government spending something that would surely have pleased his party more. I would struggle to find comparable examples of the recent Bush administration defying a key corporate lobby on a major issue. The last comparable example I can think of is HW Bush agreeing to raises taxes as part of a deficit reduction bill and of course this is widely viewed as heresy by today’s GOP even though it laid the foundations for the good economy of the 90’s. > [@](#): > > It hurts them because of opportunity cost. . I really don’t understand this argument. Are you saying that any program which doesn’t directly help the poor hurts the poor? So hypothetically a proposal to spend 50 billion on the poor and 50 billion on the middle class hurts the poor because it doesn’t all go to them? That is just not the way US politics works or should work. The Democratic party has never claimed to represent only the poor and obviously no viable political party could do that. Like I said they represent a wide range of groups from both the poor and the middle class and pursue programs to help both. Over the years they have expended a fair amount of political capital creating and defending programs to help the poor. And they have also pursued other initiatives like high-speed rail to help the environment and improve infrastructure. There is no contradiction between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/114 "2011-03-11T19:24:13Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Oh, I see. So you don’t believe that there’s a limited pool of funds available for government operations without raising taxes or cutting benefits on the middle class? Is ‘the rich’ such a bottomless well of potential government funding that 53 billion in high speed rail won’t crowd out any other government funding? Or that Wisconsin can close a multi-billion dollar biennial deficit without cutting any services, just by taxing the rich more? > > If you agree that you can’t close the gap with taxes on the rich, then it’s a zero-sum game to an extent - any dollar that goes to the benefit package of a public employee is a dollar that won’t be spent on other government programs. > > So tell me - which other programs in Wisconsin would you cut so that the public unions could have their benefits? Or do you agree with the benefit cuts? There you go again. Please show where I - or anyone else - has demanded that the gap be closed exclusively by taxing the rich. The problem - in Wisconsin, in California, and elsewhere - is that Republicans refuse to consider any tax increases at all. In California they refuse to even let the people vote for a potential tax extension (not even an increase.) Your false dichotomy is that either the entire gap gets closed by taxing the rich or the entire gap gets closed by cutting pay for state workers and/or benefits to the people. In fact the usual Democratic proposal - in California at least - is a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Please explain to me why this is unacceptable to Republicans, and why you refuse to even consider it as an option. So - do you support a tax increase on the rich (at least) to help close the gap, with the understanding that other measures will no doubt be necessary also? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/115 "2011-03-11T19:54:05Z")
Yes, anyone who takes tax increases off the table is not serious about deficits. Moderate spending cuts are much more feasible than massive spending cuts and therefore a combination of tax increases and moderate spending cuts is much more feasible than a combination of constant taxes and massive spending cuts. Secondly as a matter of history, the US has actually achieved massive deficit reduction successfully as recently as the 90’s and it was achieved by a combination of tax increases and spending restraint. The logical and pragmatic step would be to replicate that success and it can’t be done without tax increases. ---
**Author:** ![randy054](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@randy054](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randy054)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/116 "2011-03-12T21:03:00Z")
I agree that regulation is part of the problem, but its because they are applied to the detriment of the little people, and dissolved when it is to the benefit of the big players at the top. Example - Glass Steagal dissolved. Your hair braiding example fits this perfectly, where the little guy can’t compete with those that already have an established market with political connections. There should be more regulations that empower the little people, and less regulations that give more power to the big players. Companies like Monsanto for example already have a greater advantage via political connections, lawyers and lobbyists than any little seed start up company could ever have. Any regulations would be a pittance for Monsanto to pay while it would kill off any competition at the bottom that cannot afford those costs. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I love the idea of deregulating small businesses so they don’t have to meet all the crazy licensing and zoning laws and all that. The problem is, those laws are generally there because very powerful vested interests have captured government and those regulations were put into place to protect their high wages and restrict entry into the field. > > Here’s a perfect example of the kind of small business you’re talking about: Hair Braiding. There are immigrants from Africa who have been braiding hair their entire lives, and are authentic experts at it. There is big demand for their services. > > Some of them have tried to sell their services as a micro-business, braiding hair out of their homes or going to a client’s home to braid their hair. You’d think if there’s one business that shouldn’t need a lot of regulation, it’s braiding someone’s hair. It’s undoable, no scissors are involved, no real dangers. There are no hidden defects, and customers will instantly know if the braids are uncomfortable or unattractive. > > So you’d think these hair braiders should be able to just hang out a shingle and start braiding, right? Or maybe file for a business license so the state can make sure they pay their taxes and track their activity. We could go that far. But essentially it should be simple as pie. > > Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The Beauty Salon racket has most states snarled up in all kinds of regulations to protect the salons from small individual operators undercutting them. So in many states, these hair braiders are being fined and shut down down until they meet the requirements for being a licensed cosmetologist or hair stylist. Oh, but those can’t be that odious, right? Wrong. > > Some states require that a hair braider complete a 1,500 hour program in cosmetology (a program which, by the way, doesn’t teach that style of braiding at all). Most states will not allow braiders to work in the home, and in those that do, zoning laws may prevent home businesses that take walk-in traffic anyway. > > Then you may be required to work in an actual beauty salon as an apprentice before you can work on your own - and the salons will use that as an opportunity to pay dirt cheap rates for talented people. > > To be a cosmetologist in Ontario, you have to take 1,500 hours of training from an accredited school, plus you have to complete two years of apprenticeship in a licensed beauty salon, then you have to pass rigorous provincial exams. Plus you have to join the relative associations that control the licensing and pay their fees. > > Many states also require a high school diploma, which instantly freezes out a lot of poor people and immigrants who don’t have that type of education. > > All this so that you can be ‘allowed’ to cut someone’s hair or file their nails. It’s absolutely ridiculous. But it does protect the salon owners. > > If you want to open your own salon you’ll have to meet all the various regulations that have been set up to make that as hard as possible to do. Then you’ll need inspections that you’ll have to pay for. In some cases the certification will be done with the help of a state salon organization - which has a vested interest in erecting as many barriers as possible to protect their current members from competition. > > As for other industries - good luck making any kind of product in your micro-business that’s typically made by union labor - they’ve got their industries completely protected through the creation of barriers to entry that you simply can’t get past unless you’re in the union. > > How about taxi driver? You’d think that so long as you can pass the test for a class-1 license and have a vehicle that is certified to be safe, you should be able to hang out a sign and drive people around for money, right? Nope. Almost every city colludes with the taxi companies to limit the number of cab licenses that can be awarded. Because of the shortage of cab licenses, the current ones become extremely valuable, and now the cities won’t open that market up because it would kill the price of the cab license, which can be bought and sold. > > There is such a shortage of taxis in New York that in 2006 a taxi driver who was retiring sold his medallion (the right to operate a cab in NY) for $600,000! That price tells you that there is a huge shortage of cabs in New York - a shortage artificially maintained by the city in collusion with current cab owners. > > You can’t even offer your services as a day laborer if a project contains any government contract money at any stage - because the Davis-Bacon act prevents companies from hiring workers who are paid below prevailing union wages (which has the effect of basically closing off all govenrment contracting to union workers only). > > So forget about trying to make a special regulatory category for the lowest-income people. If you really want to create jobs, just start getting rid of these regulations. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/117 "2011-03-13T01:05:10Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Yes, anyone who takes tax increases off the table is not serious about deficits. Moderate spending cuts are much more feasible than massive spending cuts and therefore a combination of tax increases and moderate spending cuts is much more feasible than a combination of constant taxes and massive spending cuts. Secondly as a matter of history, the US has actually achieved massive deficit reduction successfully as recently as the 90’s and it was achieved by a combination of tax increases and spending restraint. The logical and pragmatic step would be to replicate that success and it can’t be done without tax increases. I would absolutely support tax increases, but I cannot do so without a proposal that also seriously slashes spending. This has to be a two-sided solution. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/118 "2011-03-13T02:51:48Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > I would absolutely support tax increases, but I cannot do so without a proposal that also seriously slashes spending. This has to be a two-sided solution. And addresses the coming explosion in entitlement spending. And telling the public unions (among others) who go into meltdown mode when they are asked to pay for more of their own health care to go pound sand. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/119 "2011-03-14T05:03:02Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > I would absolutely support tax increases, but I cannot do so without a proposal that also seriously slashes spending. This has to be a two-sided solution. Agree. Unfortunately Republicans don’t. As I mentioned, in California both parties agree that spending cuts are required, but the Republicans don’t even want the state to vote on keeping the taxes we have now. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626/120 "2011-03-14T05:04:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And addresses the coming explosion in entitlement spending. And telling the public unions (among others) who go into meltdown mode when they are asked to pay for more of their own health care to go pound sand. > > Regards, > Shodan Uh, not exactly. They went into meltdown mode when, after they agreed to this, Pig Walker took away their right to bargain. Let’s try to be a little accurate, can we? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bottom-up-economics-trickledown-doesnt-work/573626.md?page=5)