5 ms·

Ah yes, the good ol' trickle-down economics.

by mepian 3y ago

masfuerte 3y ago
AKA tinkle-down economics.
Alupis 3y ago
It's very difficult to argue in good faith "trickle-down" economics was/is a failure. A rising tide obviously raises all ships, including the nation's poorest. To create vast wealth generally requires vast resources, which requires vast amounts of people. Behemoths the size of Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, Google, et al employ significant chunks of the population - and not just directly. Trickle-down doesn't mean everyone will be a millionaire by doing nothing... instead, it means a ton of smaller companies are boosted while servicing larger companies, and so on - spreading wealth around in terms of employment and providing people with a living they can fairly earn.
- tivert 3y ago
  > A rising tide obviously raises all ships, including the nation's poorest. To throw a wrench in that tired metaphor: a rising tide may raise all ships, but a fat lot of good that does to the poor, if it's only the well-of that can afford to buy a boat.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    You're missing the point. Even the poor do better when there's more jobs available, more job mobility, more housing, more stores, etc. All things that are created by wealthy companies and individuals. Everyone, including our poorest, benefit from a growing economy. We just have to examine our average poverty-level person, and compare them to poverty-level persons of other nations to understand this point.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > Even the poor do better when there's more jobs available Only if those jobs offer a livable wage. If instead they are McJobs that result in workers spending more than they earn (e.g. SNAP), then poor people are doing worse, and it's a net-negative on society.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        This misses the reason so-called McJobs don't pay a "living" wage. You're not supposed to earn a living wage doing zero skilled work. You're supposed to develop skills and move up in the working world. Why are people stagnating instead of moving up? That's a really good question.
        Kerrick 3y ago
        What code says you’re “not supposed to”? Why is that morally correct? And most importantly, how do you account for the fact that in the U.S. there are about 53 million people in low wage jobs, but only about 33 million high school and college students? What are those other 20 million workers “supposed to” be?
        crote 3y ago
        > You're not supposed to earn a living wage doing zero skilled work. If you are not "supposed" to earn a living wage, then the job should not exist. It's a simple matter of supply and demand: if you can't afford to pay your laborers a living wage, you have obviously failed as a company because you are unable to exist without slave labor. > This misses the reason so-called McJobs don't pay a "living" wage. Yes, this reason is called "profit". They pay so little because it is legal to do so, and people would rather work three jobs than see their kids starve. > You're supposed to develop skills and move up in the working world. If everyone moves up, who is going to do those jobs? And how exactly are you supposed to develop those skills if you have to work three jobs just to survive? There are only so many hours in a day, you know.
        smolder 3y ago
        > Why are people stagnating instead of moving up? That's a really good question. It's a difficult question to answer thoroughly, but there should be a few obvious factors. Most of the labor market is effectively priced out of acquiring higher valued skills/degrees that would improve their career. Their opportunities for advancement are laughable. So, then, why is that?
    - tivert 3y ago
      > You're missing the point. No I'm not. I know exactly the point you were making. I'm disputing it. The problem is the devil is in the details, and both the tired metaphor and your defense of it leave those details unspecified.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        You've offered zero details about why this is incorrect. You've just asserted the meme that it's "obviously wrong"... There is no good faith argument that exists to prove this incorrect.
        bandyaboot 3y ago
        I’m looking, but I must be missing the part where you provided details to justify your own assertion of it being obviously true.
        Alupis 3y ago
        TFA, among other economic articles, statistics, etc support this assertion.
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        The parent article is a tweet of a graph, and it says nothing about trickle-down. > other economic articles, statistics, etc Ah well, you're wrong. "other economic articles, statistics, etc" clearly do not support this. I mean, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." but lets bring the citations: > trickle-down economics has never been advocated by any economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economi...
    - Sharlin 3y ago
      Sure, feel free to compare American poverty-level people to poverty-level people in countries with stronger safety nets.
      - refurb 3y ago
        Analysis of inequality ignores government transfers. Did you know that?
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      How about dividends and stock buybacks? How do those help the poor? If trickle down economics (read: giving money to rich people in hopes that they don’t just hoard it) actually led to more jobs, more housing, and better mobility instead of the opposite, you wouldn’t have to pay off economists for them to advocate for it.
- OGWhales 3y ago
  Considering the decline of economic mobility, increasing income inequality/wealth concentration and most importantly the stagnation of real wages[0], all of which started around the 1980s, it would seem the economic policies prior were more successful in raising all people. I don’t mean to trivialize the complicated nature of the matter, with the effects of the world wars and globalization + many other factors, it is hard to separate things, but it really does not seem all that difficult to argue that trickle down economics is not better than what we were doing before and to do so in good faith. Of course, the actual goal of trickle down economics was to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few and in that regard it is undeniably a success. [0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- crote 3y ago
  Amazon has workers pee in bottles and literally walk around the corpses of their dead coworkers. Walmart famously pays their employees so little they rely on food stamps to survive. The nation's poorest are not provided with a fairly-earned living. They are working themselves to death while not even earning enough to survive, and they can't get any other job because those "smaller companies" have been killed by the behemoths outcompeting them by using exploitative labor practices.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > It's very difficult to argue in good faith "trickle-down" economics was/is a failure. Complete nonsense. You can look at the real-world effects. Or the economists, who have done so and do not support it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economi... The citations that you want are linked there. Are you seriously saying that the whole "Economics" section of the Wikipedia article on trickle-down economics is "not good faith"? Trickle down is a failure at its stated aims. It does not work. It never worked, and now people have noticed. > A rising tide obviously raises all ships A metaphor proves nothing. I might as well say "when money is concerned, no it doesn't: it's every man for himself" and leave it at that.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > It's very difficult to argue in good faith "trickle-down" economics was/is a failure. > A rising tide obviously raises all ships, including the nation's poorest. Let me ask you one thing in addition: can you explain why "trickle-down" economics is superior to "trickle-up" economics: where the money goes directly to those poorest who need it, cutting out the middle-men; and then when they spend it until it inevitably trickles up to businesses and the more well-off? How does does "trickle-down" economics compare to that?
- noelherrick 3y ago
  You can definitely argue that trickle-down economics was a failure. London School of Economics does exactly that.[0] I am also a bit surprised that you haven't heard the absolute despair of Millennials and Gen Z. Wealth inequality is off the charts. If wasn't for Mark Zuckerberg, Millennials would have an average negative net worth (mostly joking). This isn't a matter of complaining that you have to cut down on avo toast, it's people not going to the doctor, dentist, having to pile into small houses, always be on the edge of your car breaking down. We're the wealthiest country in the world, but folks have to start GoFundMe's to pay for healthcare. Wild. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trick...
midasuni 3y ago
When the rich and powerful piss on everyone else. Oh how far we’ve come since the economy of the 1960s.

Ah yes, the good ol' trickle-down economics.

by mepian 3y ago

Ah yes, the good ol' trickle-down economics.

masfuerte 3y ago

AKA tinkle-down economics.

Alupis 3y ago

It's very difficult to argue in good faith "trickle-down" economics was/is a failure. A rising tide obviously raises all ships, including the nation's poorest. To create vast wealth generally requires vast resources, which requires vast amounts of people. Behemoths the size of Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, Google, et al employ significant chunks of the population - and not just directly. Trickle-down doesn't mean everyone will be a millionaire by doing nothing... instead, it means a ton of smaller companies are boosted while servicing larger companies, and so on - spreading wealth around in terms of employment and providing people with a living they can fairly earn.

tivert 3y ago
> A rising tide obviously raises all ships, including the nation's poorest. To throw a wrench in that tired metaphor: a rising tide may raise all ships, but a fat lot of good that does to the poor, if it's only the well-of that can afford to buy a boat.
- Alupis 3y ago
  You're missing the point. Even the poor do better when there's more jobs available, more job mobility, more housing, more stores, etc. All things that are created by wealthy companies and individuals. Everyone, including our poorest, benefit from a growing economy. We just have to examine our average poverty-level person, and compare them to poverty-level persons of other nations to understand this point.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > Even the poor do better when there's more jobs available Only if those jobs offer a livable wage. If instead they are McJobs that result in workers spending more than they earn (e.g. SNAP), then poor people are doing worse, and it's a net-negative on society.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      This misses the reason so-called McJobs don't pay a "living" wage. You're not supposed to earn a living wage doing zero skilled work. You're supposed to develop skills and move up in the working world. Why are people stagnating instead of moving up? That's a really good question.
      - Kerrick 3y ago
        What code says you’re “not supposed to”? Why is that morally correct? And most importantly, how do you account for the fact that in the U.S. there are about 53 million people in low wage jobs, but only about 33 million high school and college students? What are those other 20 million workers “supposed to” be?
      - crote 3y ago
        > You're not supposed to earn a living wage doing zero skilled work. If you are not "supposed" to earn a living wage, then the job should not exist. It's a simple matter of supply and demand: if you can't afford to pay your laborers a living wage, you have obviously failed as a company because you are unable to exist without slave labor. > This misses the reason so-called McJobs don't pay a "living" wage. Yes, this reason is called "profit". They pay so little because it is legal to do so, and people would rather work three jobs than see their kids starve. > You're supposed to develop skills and move up in the working world. If everyone moves up, who is going to do those jobs? And how exactly are you supposed to develop those skills if you have to work three jobs just to survive? There are only so many hours in a day, you know.
      - smolder 3y ago
        > Why are people stagnating instead of moving up? That's a really good question. It's a difficult question to answer thoroughly, but there should be a few obvious factors. Most of the labor market is effectively priced out of acquiring higher valued skills/degrees that would improve their career. Their opportunities for advancement are laughable. So, then, why is that?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > You're missing the point. No I'm not. I know exactly the point you were making. I'm disputing it. The problem is the devil is in the details, and both the tired metaphor and your defense of it leave those details unspecified.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      You've offered zero details about why this is incorrect. You've just asserted the meme that it's "obviously wrong"... There is no good faith argument that exists to prove this incorrect.
      - bandyaboot 3y ago
        I’m looking, but I must be missing the part where you provided details to justify your own assertion of it being obviously true.
        Alupis 3y ago
        TFA, among other economic articles, statistics, etc support this assertion.
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        The parent article is a tweet of a graph, and it says nothing about trickle-down. > other economic articles, statistics, etc Ah well, you're wrong. "other economic articles, statistics, etc" clearly do not support this. I mean, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." but lets bring the citations: > trickle-down economics has never been advocated by any economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economi...
  - Sharlin 3y ago
    Sure, feel free to compare American poverty-level people to poverty-level people in countries with stronger safety nets.
    - refurb 3y ago
      Analysis of inequality ignores government transfers. Did you know that?
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    How about dividends and stock buybacks? How do those help the poor? If trickle down economics (read: giving money to rich people in hopes that they don’t just hoard it) actually led to more jobs, more housing, and better mobility instead of the opposite, you wouldn’t have to pay off economists for them to advocate for it.
OGWhales 3y ago
Considering the decline of economic mobility, increasing income inequality/wealth concentration and most importantly the stagnation of real wages[0], all of which started around the 1980s, it would seem the economic policies prior were more successful in raising all people. I don’t mean to trivialize the complicated nature of the matter, with the effects of the world wars and globalization + many other factors, it is hard to separate things, but it really does not seem all that difficult to argue that trickle down economics is not better than what we were doing before and to do so in good faith. Of course, the actual goal of trickle down economics was to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few and in that regard it is undeniably a success. [0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
crote 3y ago
Amazon has workers pee in bottles and literally walk around the corpses of their dead coworkers. Walmart famously pays their employees so little they rely on food stamps to survive. The nation's poorest are not provided with a fairly-earned living. They are working themselves to death while not even earning enough to survive, and they can't get any other job because those "smaller companies" have been killed by the behemoths outcompeting them by using exploitative labor practices.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> It's very difficult to argue in good faith "trickle-down" economics was/is a failure. Complete nonsense. You can look at the real-world effects. Or the economists, who have done so and do not support it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Economi... The citations that you want are linked there. Are you seriously saying that the whole "Economics" section of the Wikipedia article on trickle-down economics is "not good faith"? Trickle down is a failure at its stated aims. It does not work. It never worked, and now people have noticed. > A rising tide obviously raises all ships A metaphor proves nothing. I might as well say "when money is concerned, no it doesn't: it's every man for himself" and leave it at that.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> It's very difficult to argue in good faith "trickle-down" economics was/is a failure. > A rising tide obviously raises all ships, including the nation's poorest. Let me ask you one thing in addition: can you explain why "trickle-down" economics is superior to "trickle-up" economics: where the money goes directly to those poorest who need it, cutting out the middle-men; and then when they spend it until it inevitably trickles up to businesses and the more well-off? How does does "trickle-down" economics compare to that?
noelherrick 3y ago
You can definitely argue that trickle-down economics was a failure. London School of Economics does exactly that.[0] I am also a bit surprised that you haven't heard the absolute despair of Millennials and Gen Z. Wealth inequality is off the charts. If wasn't for Mark Zuckerberg, Millennials would have an average negative net worth (mostly joking). This isn't a matter of complaining that you have to cut down on avo toast, it's people not going to the doctor, dentist, having to pile into small houses, always be on the edge of your car breaking down. We're the wealthiest country in the world, but folks have to start GoFundMe's to pay for healthcare. Wild. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trick...

midasuni 3y ago

When the rich and powerful piss on everyone else. Oh how far we’ve come since the economy of the 1960s.