3 ms·

What would be true? Sorry, I don't follow.

• ceejayoz 7y ago
  The world's wealthy sock away a larger percentage of their wealth than the poor. Virtually every penny the poor obtain winds up back in the economy, and because of the economic multiplier effect, those pennies have a greater impact as they wind their way through the system. https://ips-dc.org/wall_street_bonuses_and_the_minimum_wage/ https://ips-dc.org/wall_street_bonuses_and_the_minimum_wage/ > All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP.
  • _jgdh 7y ago
    That's a false choice. It's not a choice between paying banker bonuses or giving minimum wage workers an increase. Also, while I agree with the premise that it's better to increase the minimum wage could you explain why folks investing their bonuses in the stock market and therefore directing their capital towards productive companies is worse than consumers spending their money directly?
    • ceejayoz 7y ago
      > It's not a choice between paying banker bonuses or giving minimum wage workers an increase. Sure it is. When the last round of tax cuts were configured, deliberate choices were made that affected different income brackets in different ways. The levers can be tweaked to direct the benefits to the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, etc. > could you explain why folks investing their bonuses in the stock market and therefore directing their capital towards productive companies is worse than consumers spending their money directly? I already did, with a linked source for further details.