3 ms·

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 crea

by 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?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
      Parent poster: trickle-down economics definitely works. Just think about it. Also parent: Why are people stagnating instead of moving up? It's a real puzzle.
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.

by Alupis 3y ago

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?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
    Parent poster: trickle-down economics definitely works. Just think about it. Also parent: Why are people stagnating instead of moving up? It's a real puzzle.

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.