“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed.”
3 Likes
Hard to believe that Americans have more disposable income when their wages have essentially been stagnant for some time.
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income/
The average US income is a less useful measure because it is skewed by high income households and mega income earners.The average US income is a less useful measure because it is skewed by high income households and mega income earners. Do you think this might have an effect?
When you copy and paste your responses and comments. Try not to hit “ctrl+v” twice in a row.
What do you expect. This is the guy that bit bait on a water joke
2 Likes
Obligatory, you’re a fucking idiot.
You’re the one that worships the OECD data. I’m shocked you can’t handle the truth because of your ideology.
You will believe literally anything on the internet if it’s in line with your ideology. You are no better than the people you unsuccessfully shit on here.
You didn’t ask about Trump’s goal you dumb shit. You asked about current times versus DECADES AGO.
In order to role back the regulations to the 1950 level, since that’s about what tax bracket you seem to like, you would have to cut ALL regulations EVERYWHERE by ~95%! To get to 1960 it would be ~89-90% cuts.
It is incontrovertibly true that the regulatory burden is greater now than decades ago. Period, full stop.
1 Like
Hey Zep, would you agree that if Bernie Sanders was in the top 1%, that would be hypocritical of him?
Wow! You’re so intelligent. Why do I even bother to wrestle with such intellectual giants.
Because I’ve posted a few things that reference it doesn’t mean that I worship it. Things must be taken account to others.
Actually you bother BECAUSE you’re not intelligent. An intelligent person that has been posting this stuff for so long would look back and consider the time spent, and the successes achieved to get a rough value ratio. If that value ratio is low (like yours), an intelligent person would either change the approach or stop altogether.
Because you’re incapable of seeing the damage you do to your own causes AND you’re incapable of accepting your own failures, you continue on anyways.
It’s not really that complicated, but then again neither was the water joke
1 Like
And where do you get the majority of your information?
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-american-wages/
One theory is that rising benefit costs — particularly employer-provided health insurance — may be constraining employers’ ability or willingness to raise wages.
More great news about our superior “healthcare” system.
What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.
Do you think this may skew the disposable income question?
Or because this information was found on the internet it is invalid?
Is this “burden” effectively enforced? Or maybe we should just let corporations do whatever it is that they like.
Depends on how his money was made as ALL profits are not equal as most of the douchebags on here think. Does he have a Super-Pac? Does he take massive donations from the ultra-wealthy and corporations, so that they can control him? What policies is he supporting and what policies are he against?
No shit, Sherlock. Why would you ignore benefits cost when discussion employee compensation? Oh, wait, I know why, it fit your ideology.
People move in and out of these brackets. Earnings aren’t static. Economic mobility is a thing in these United States, unlike the socialist countries you love.
Evey country in the OECD being compared to has this same issue. Does it “skew” earnings, ie are there more high earnings outliers, probably, but I doubt it skews it enough to drop US disposable income below other OECD countries.
Critical thinking. Try it.
It sure as shit is. I can testify to that first hand.
Tell me, have you ever been responsible for making payroll? Have you ever signed the front of a paycheck, rather than the back?
If you had, you’d wouldn’t put the word “burden” in quotes, at all.
1 Like
Really? At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations.
Oh so it makes sense that your immensely embarrassing posts come from you.
What other country is as unequal as the U.S.?
