That said, you might find this interesting too - probably a little more logical a correlation than a change to fiat currency.
You people are getting straight pwn3d by the Commodore. The operative message here is that most of the arguments against raising the minimum wage and predictions of immediate mechanization in response thereto have a proven track record of complete failure in recent months. By and large, the biggest consequence of minimum wage raises is to improve more people's lives in a signifcant way on a net basis. Or something that we universally recognize as "success". Alternative views have more or less been shown to be wrong. Not just questionable, but wrong. It's as wrong as predictions of Obamacare's failure, Obama destroying the economy, hyperinflation, and basically absolutely everything those guys have tried to forecast or project over the last decade or two tangentially related to the topic. The argument isn't really an evidentiary one so much as a psychological or psychiatric one. Why do they persist in dumbassery? Do they believe their own dumbassery? I don't know really. It's not that interesting though.
That's because your "question" keeps changing as you realize you don't know what's going on and are trying to shift gears. He cared about the topic of when the 1% income shifted because that's the discussion that was going on. It's that's simple. Just because you tried to change the topic doesn't mean everyone else did. You didn't understand what GR was talking about, then made a stupid claim that he couldn't read charts, then tried to hide it by changing topics when called out on it.
ive asked the same question from the beginning and dont get an answer. Not my fault GR cant read a chart or answer a question. very first post:
I worked for GE and it blows. They give bonuses to salary employees only They use temps to fill in jobs for as long as possible then let them go when the benefits by law time comes around They let go of %10 of their employees every year They're only concerned strictly about the numbers and how much more you can increase their business. I've seen people give time, sacrifice days weeks and months for projects, make them successful then get let go anyway. This company operates everything on what its bottom line is no matter what. They buy other companies then cut the benefits down if its higher than their own which many times it is because they hardly give you much of anything and make you foot ALOT of the bill on your medical insurance. I loathe companies like this and its really time to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They have and make plenty of money but they'll demolish an entire department if it means saving a few bucks and whoever is left at the company is there to pick up the slack.... Its a mess if you ask me
Because as the economy in general grows, the profits are split according to the bargaining power of the stakeholders. In the mid-20th century, labor had a relatively strong bargaining position and many workers prospered. More recently with computers, robotics, and other automation of labor, as well as globalization, capital has greatly strengthened its hand vis-a-vis labor, and now take a much larger share of the fruits of our endeavors. One-percenters, as the equity-holders who benefit from the changing dynamic, make a lot more money. In other words, the income growth one-percenters are enjoying is money that would go into labor's pockets if they had the bargaining power they did in 1950.
the chart disproves this. Anyways its illogical to begin with. there is not a finite amount of value in the world.
Because their income is increasing at the detriment of the rest of society. Awesome and JV gave good examples of why you should be concerned.
One, the chart doesn't speak to it at all. Two, I'm not saying that the value is finite. I'm saying capital and labor collaborate to make value. They've produced $x worth of value. Of $x, capital gets y% and labor gets z%. And over the past several decades, y has been increasing and z decreasing. I'd go on to say that our public policy choices are one significant component of determining the relative bargaining strengths. We have made some choices that prop up labor's claim, and others that give capital strength. I think this graph suggests we've allowed the negotiation to tip too far in capital's favor and that we should make policy changes that will make money slide the other way. When conservatives hear that, they call it redistribution, as if the current distribution were somehow original or even natural. But, it's just a negotiation.
Perhaps some looking into the collapse of different nations and civilizations will help you come to an answer.
Read Awesome's post... And then you got companies like Wal-Mart who use even shytier tactics and then these super companies don't pay their fair share of taxes like a small business owner would have to pay. Yours.... Many of Wal-Mart's employees are on government assistance and the taxpayers are flipping the bill because they're too greedy to pay their workers.
