It’s not an intuitive process, so bear with me here:
Sandwich Shop A might be providing X number of jobs with Y amount of profit. Sandwich Shop B might determine that even though peoples’ sandwich needs are apparently met, B can provide a competitive enough product to drive A out of the market. Sandwich Shop B does this by inventing or introducing a more efficient process. Or making a better product at comparable cost. Or making a comparable product at a slightly reduced cost.
Whatever. If B is correct and drives A out of business (or cuts into their business enough that they get a decent share of the cost) the hope is that B can use their improved process to expand their market and start competing with Sandwich Shops B and C. Even if Sandwich Shop A’s overhead is smaller and provides less jobs hopefully the rest of the customer base saves enough money or gets enough value added that they use their savings on other economic endeavors. Which of course leads to more jobs somewhere else. The point is that even though Sandwich Shop B’s competition may not actually increase the number of Sandwich Shop jobs they still contribute to the overall health of the economy.
That’s the basic idea. And it’s why even at the height of Gilded Age exploitation the overall poverty in the United States decreased; even though the workforce was subject to extreme indignities FFS meat and mail delivery and furniture and whatnot became much more affordable. Of course then we have the question of ‘at what point is the drive for economic efficiency is not worth the human cost’, which is a much harder and deserves a different answer.
But supply-side economics and increased competition/deregulation isn’t all bad. They’re very useful tools, when used correctly. It’s just that the modern American Republican Party has perverted these tools into ‘tax cuts for the rich’ and ‘more deregulations the better’.
You’re arguing that the rich are worth more than those eking out a middle-class existence.
What about the people who teach your children? The cops? The firefighters? The prosecutors? The people who build the roads and buildings so you have a business and people can get to it? The people who deliver the mail?
Great, you can create jobs. Those jobs are worth nothing if you aren’t willing to pay for all of the above, and then some, because without those people (all of whom are living a middle-class lifestyle), you don’t have a society at all, you have an uneducated rabble. Maybe that’s the master plan…it would certainly create more Republican voters.
Oh, and just so you know, I didn’t hear from you, or I would have told you that you know of at least two people who make over $250K who are okay paying our fair share of taxes. I must have been screening my phone calls.
He might not have started the business if the most profit that he could have ever hoped for is a handful of dollars more than keeping at whatever job he was currently doing, that much is obvious.
Of course then the question to ask is: what would be his breaking point? Say someone invented a process and worked long hours to produce a hundred million dollars. What would be the after-tax collection when he decided ‘eh, fuck it, I’ll just continue at my old job’? 50 million? 20 million? 10 million? A million? Furthermore, even if this person does decide that at whatever post-business profitability he’ll only work for isn’t met so just decides not to start a sandwich shop/open a firm/invent a microchip/whatever the fuck, what guarantee isn’t there that someone who is willing to just have a million and produce comparable work? If a business genius threatens to Go Galt if he doesn’t see 70 million of his 100 million dollar business but a not-so-genius guy is willing to settle for 10 million of his 50 million dollar business (because he’s not a genius his product isn’t as good), why shouldn’t society go with the latter?
Nope. I’m not doing that, not at all, not one fucking bit. Yet every time this topic comes up, someone accuses me of doing that. I haven’t (and never have) said a single word about “moral value” or “social worth” or anything like that at all.
Society apparently values the individual services of each of those people less than the services of the people who dunk your basketballs, star in your movies, and write your teen wizard/vampire/werewolf fiction. Hey, it’s a crazy world.
Again, you are talking about something different than I’m talking about. You are talking about the social value of these people collectively (or something). All I’m talking about is the actual value of the services that individuals provide (as measured by how much others are willing to pay for those services). I’m talking about something real and measurable, and you are talking about unicorn shit.
It’s not the sentiment of class warfare I object to, it’s the hypocrisy. Claiming class warfare (I hate that term, because it’s not really warfare, but whatever) while being taxed a bit more is understandable; I don’t agree, but I get where you’re coming from. However, doing this while trying to cut benefits that go to the poor, allowing taxes to be raised on the middle class and poor, and claiming teachers are overpaid, while making 600 k a year? You’re an ass.
Even if you were an actual tax lawyer, that wouldn’t be true. See, the company I work for produces actual products. All you produce are finagled numbers that some other lawyers disguised as politicians made necessary as the cost of entry to not paying as many taxes.
All that really does is serve as evidence that a completely free market is a really retarded idea, because people are basically stupid about valuations.
Let’s try this. Why don’t you repost the statement I corrected and explain what you think it adds to the conversation. If it’s non-idiotic, I’ll retract the accusation and apologize. If it is still makes no helpful point with your explanation, then you get idiot tattooed on your forehead. Deal?
Really? Wealthy people shouldn’t be able to live in a way that they like that is within their means. And don’t forget all the materials that go into the building, and all the workers needed to install them. And, by golly, they may even have doormen! :eek: Who, by the way, make a very good salary.
Also, keep in mind that people who have a lot of money spend a lot of money. Someone who makes $40,000 may put near all that back into the economy. Someone who makes $500,000 is injecting much, much more than that back into the economy, keeping people employed providing goods and services.
It’s only a fallacy if you can show how the excluded can be achieved without the extremes. If you can’t that’s going into ‘I know there’s a perfect solution somewhere even it I can’t describe it! Just BELIEVE ME’ territory which is just as wrong.
The other problem is that the excluded middle can be shown (at least on the face of it) to provide contradictory evidence. I can tell you right now that someone is going to wave 1950-1970 tax rates/revenue collection/GDP in someone’s 1980-1992 tax rate/revenue collection/GDP in the other person’s. Which just falls into the problem articulated in the previous paragraph.
What’s the difference as far as the economy goes between 10 guys spending $40,000 and one spending $100,000 as opposed to one guy spending $500,000?
Where’s your evidence that the person with the $500,000 actually spends it at some point? Milton Friedman didn’t agree with that (permanent income hypothesis) and I can provide a further countercite if pressed.
There’s a valid point you make. That some sandwich shops he could open may not be filling a need of demand. But in those cases, he has to attract people away from other sandwich venues, right? And to do that he has to offer something better. Better quality or bigger portions or a cheaper price or a more convenient locations. If he does not do that, guess what, chances are he’ll go out of business.
So you really, really think he meant that his family eats $200k of food? Please. Let’s not knee-jerk to the ridiculous.
I really think that Congressmembers should get minimum wage with no benefits except social security and medicare. Perhaps reimbursement for travelling coach and a cheap car rental. And a college dorm room equiv while in DC.
You make a point, but you’re shifting the burden of proof. There is no reason to assume that tweaking the tax code to make it a bit flatter, or to keep i the same, is bringing us back to the 1800s. It’s absurd.
I didn’t say anything about his taxes. You’re making stuff up.
The man who said he’d make me a millionaire (and came close) had to take out a second mortgage on his home to make payroll when I started working for him, actually. When we went public I bought in at $2.50. I chickened out and sold most of my stock early, at $75.00. I told you once and I’ll tell you again: I’ve made as much in a phone call as you make in a year. Silence, cur.
I’m not sure I’m following you here. “…as far as the economy goes…”? I’m not sure what you’re asking.
My point is not that he spends all of it, but it’s almost a certainty that he’s putting more than $40k back into the economy. Do you disagree with that?
I spend more on single malt than you make in an entire year. I spend more on golf club polish than…
But hey there RR. Keep on sucking up to those rich folks. Maybe one day you and their pool boy will be allowed to sit in the Lear Jet when it sitting on the runway. Maybe.
