And another article about given the "propensity to consume" it is not the wealthy that create jobs but consumers.
If trickledown were true then with the top 10% of earners currently enjoying their largest share of the national income in about the last hundred years we should have more jobs than we can fill.
Instead, we have become a government economy of consumers that produces debt, exports natural resources and consumes goods and services other nations produce for us.
Politicians and the Fed have gamed the system and so altered the national landscape that trickle down now comes as pain: that which flows from taxes and regulations and government's politically determined distribution, rather than that which comes via natural market forces.
Except people don’t stay in the same quintiles all their working lives. They usually progress. That means most of the people who were in a lower quintile progress to the next quintile. In short, they get richer. Sorry pal, Marxism is still a rotten economic theory. But if your Fearless Leader Obama and others like him keep getting voted in as president, total destruction of all wealth is assured.
If you think about it, this chart completely confirms human nature. Nothing more, nothing less.
5.56mm
Apparently enough of our electorate now agrees with this argument to say that yes, Reaganomics is dead. At least until we’ve tried out all the alternatives.
No it doesn't
In a modern, free, division of labor society, with a just government, the gains of the rich do not cause a loss to the non-rich and lead to gains for all.This is what the chart shows.
From 1967 to about 2001, while the rich were gaining, everyone was gaining. After 2001, while the rich were declining, everyone was declining. The greater gain of the rich is a result of their greater contribution to production relative to the non-rich, and does not result from stealing from the non-rich or exploiting them.
"trickle-down" is tired old BS, there was never any such thing to begin with.
"trickle-down" is tired old BS, there was never any such thing to begin with.
The simple fact is this: A single household with a married couple each earning $40,000, will be presented as a one household with an income of $80,000. For a sample size of one, the mean household income is $80K.
If the couple divorces and moves into separate residences, there are now two households each with an income of $40K. For a sample size of two, the mean household income is $40K.
No one got a pay cut. No one lost a job. But household income declined by half.
Now consider the number of single people living by themselves, as people tend to marry later. Consider the number of single mothers. Consider the number of divorced couples.
Comparing today's household income statistics with 20 and 40 year old data is an irrelevant comparison if the goal is to make an accurate presumption on how much individuals (not households) earn. Individual income statistics are much more relevant.
My bad. I thought this chart depicted government salaries in the top curve.
I know trickle-down economics states that deregulation and tax cuts will lead to job creation but WHERE are those jobs being created? Not in the US, that’s for sure. Even if the minimum wage were abolished tomorrow Chinese workers would still work for lower wages than US workers because cost of living is lower in China. Our federal government has turned a blind eye to the outsourcing of practically our entire industrial sector to China and to China’s blatant currency manipulation but China would not be so powerful today if executives had believed and invested in America.
Voting Democrat does nothing for the first, and worsens the second two.
Naked Capitlism is run by a woman using the phony name Yves Smith (a take-off on Adam Smith, even though Adam Smith favored free markets). She is extremely left-wing and hates capitalism with a passion.
Income equality is the result of rising number of unmarried females, partly from welfare expansion and partly from cultural trends. It also partly from the fact more people can live alone that had to live with someone else. Older people, for example. Incomes are down on the lower end because of uncontrolled immigraiton.
Also, when more and more families are on welfare or depending on earned income tax credits, they never enter the workforce and are never able to advance their incomes overo the years. Thus, the become dead-enders, bringing down the average because they are lazy and contribute nothing of value to society. Indeed they bring down society.
Finally, uncontrolled immigraiton plus illegal immigration has been brinking millions of people with low IQ and limited ambition. They may work hard, but they’re going to bring down the average incomes. More peasants from Latin America equals more income inequality.
Look at California. They have the highest poverty rate in America now. Their high welfare payments attrack the worst of the lot from around the nation and the Western Hemisphere for that matter. If you want income inequality — follow California’s lead.
wealthy that create jobs but consumers
No “consumer” (a weird abstraction because businesses are consumers too) has ever created a job. Jobs are created by people with money who hire people to perform tasks. That’s what a job is - when someone is hired to perform a task. When you take money away from people looking to hire they can’t hire people. When you take money away from people who can most effectively invest that capital you get less investment. It’s simple logic.
The problem with the graph is inflation and monetary policy and the lack of a true free market economy in which inefficient producers are weeded out and costs come down making real wages go up.