motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted February 20, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted February 20, 2017 Elon musk advocating for UBI while fighting against unionization of his employees by the UAW........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, BOHICA said: Elon musk advocating for UBI while fighting against unionization of his employees by the UAW........ Lol, capitalists aren't known for their ideological consistency. Just like how they expect limitless demand while hollowing out their own markets. Willfully ignorant of the contradictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted February 20, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, motonoggin said: Lol, capitalists aren't known for their ideological consistency. Just like how they expect limitless demand while hollowing out their own markets. Willfully ignorant of the contradictions. UBI is capitalist way of others to pay for there workers... UBI is the biggest form of trickle on the lower class ever proposed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, BOHICA said: UBI is capitalist way of others to pay for there workers... UBI is the biggest form of trickle on the lower class ever proposed You just don't like it because it helps people you think don't deserve help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 30 minutes ago, motonoggin said: But if they didn't incur debt to buy things, aggregate demand would fall, leading to falling prices, lower profits, job loss, and even less aggregate demand. Do you even understand the basic concepts of a consumer economy? Sure as hell do... much better than you will ever understand any of the economic principals such as supply and demand. Demand for products goes up and down all the time. Nothing new. There is a big difference between manageable debt and being over extended. Manageable debt does not translate as many think to just being able to make the monthly payments and not have any cash left at the end of the month. Demand for WANTS MAY FALL but DEMAND FOR NEEDS IS JEOPARDIZED BY PEOPLE OF THE GIMME GENERATIONS going into debt for WANTS. I nor any of the people I associate with acquire WANTS at the expense of the ability to pay for our NEEDS or to fiscally plan responsibly for our futures and our retirements. Too many are adopting the "live off of other peoples handouts if times get tough approach" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 44 minutes ago, Back Country Rebel said: 120 years ago people like you cried that the world as we know was going to end because of the motorcar. Just more "the sky is falling" BS from people stuck in the mud. That horseless carriage was going to be the end of existence as we know it. Funny how things shifted. Long ago everyone had a horse and the well to do had an automobile. Now everyone has an automobile and the well to do have the luxury of a horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, 02sled said: Sure as hell do... much better than you will ever understand any of the economic principals such as supply and demand. Demand for products goes up and down all the time. Nothing new. There is a big difference between manageable debt and being over extended. Manageable debt does not translate as many think to just being able to make the monthly payments and not have any cash left at the end of the month. Demand for WANTS MAY FALL but DEMAND FOR NEEDS IS JEOPARDIZED BY PEOPLE OF THE GIMME GENERATIONS going into debt for WANTS. I nor any of the people I associate with acquire WANTS at the expense of the ability to pay for our NEEDS or to fiscally plan responsibly for our futures and our retirements. Too many are adopting the "live off of other peoples handouts if times get tough approach" Clearly you aren't getting it. Our economy has been propped up by both public and private debt in order to avoid deflation. If we ran the economy on just wages, we'd all be in bread lines right now. The economy NEEDS debt injection to remain stable. Because wages are stagnant, the money to buy all the stuff we're making has to come from somewhere. If you want to see falling debt levels without the supply side being effected, wages have to rise. It's really that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 47 minutes ago, motonoggin said: No. And don't you mean you're going to bullshit your way through an answer because you know fuck all about the subject matter? The idea that the economy will self correct is easily disproven by 40 years of stagnant wages and rising debt. The next generation of automation is going to accelerate and magnify this problem. Bold: Nope. And I'm not gonna try as what I've posted against you already has you "triggered" and angry. So, let me ask you this question. After the crash (housing bubble) in 2007 where it was clear debt was handed out in a reckless way to those who either couldn't sustain it or those that had no business having that debt, ie, debt ratios were WAY above earnings (credit bubble), why aren't we in your socialist commune now? Do you think that it is going to take even something more catastrophic for us to all wake up and say; "You know what...let's try this whole socialist/communist thing....it has worked well for others." Because that's what it seems like you are betting will happen. You've even said it yourself that it will take the collective rethinking their ideals for it to be tried. Cuz, (bad news spolier alert)....that will NEVER happen here. And the "next generation of automation". OMG. Your ideas read like a science fiction movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted February 20, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, motonoggin said: You just don't like it because it helps people you think don't deserve help. We already help some of undeserving. Renaming welfare to UBI doesn't change the fact its still the same program of trickle down Edited February 20, 2017 by BOHICA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Noggin is easily influenced by the falling sky crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Bold: Nope. And I'm not gonna try as what I've posted against you already has you "triggered" and angry. So, let me ask you this question. After the crash (housing bubble) in 2007 where it was clear debt was handed out in a reckless way to those who either couldn't sustain it or those that had no business having that debt, ie, debt ratios were WAY above earnings (credit bubble), why aren't we in your socialist commune now? Do you think that it is going to take even something more catastrophic for us to all wake up and say; "You know what...let's try this whole socialist/communist thing....it has worked well for others." Because that's what it seems like you are betting will happen. You've even said it yourself that it will take the collective rethinking their ideals for it to be tried. Cuz, (bad news spolier alert)....that will NEVER happen here. And the "next generation of automation". OMG. Your ideas read like a science fiction movie. Because people still wanted to blame poor people for crashing the housing market. The next bubble is debt. $20 trillion is owed by the federal government alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, BOHICA said: We already help the undeserving lower class. Renaming welfare to UBI doesn't change the fact its still the same program of trickle down It's not trickle down, that'd be redistribution. Get your definitions straight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted February 20, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, motonoggin said: It's not trickle down, that'd be redistribution. Get your definitions straight redistrubition... trickle down. Same same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, motonoggin said: It's not trickle down, that'd be redistribution. Get your definitions straight And as it's been asked of you countless times. Show us where redistribution has ever worked before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Back Country Rebel said: Noggin is easily influenced by the falling sky crowd. Record debt, stagnant wages, and an automation revolution on the horizon? If you aren't worried about what's going to happen to the next couple generations, you aren't paying attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, BOHICA said: redistrubition... trickle down. Same same No, it's not, you fucking moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Back Country Rebel said: And as it's been asked of you countless times. Show us where redistribution has ever worked before. Lol, it hasn't, that's why capitalism is a failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted February 20, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, motonoggin said: No, it's not, you fucking moron. Both are giving somebody elses money to those that didn't earn it. Same with UBI Edited February 20, 2017 by BOHICA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, BOHICA said: Both are giving money to those that didn't earn it. Same with UBI Holy shit. Trickle down is the idea that if we don't tax the rich, their wealth will trickle down to the rest of us. Redistribution is the idea that we tax those with the most and give it to those with the least. They're totally different ideas. The fact that you can't even get these simple concepts straight shows how fucking backwards the average American's understanding of economics really is. It's sad because you're all getting fucked but you're too goddamned ignorant to realize it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 42 minutes ago, motonoggin said: The bureau of labor statistics. Where's your support for your totally insane comment. If wages were stagnant for 40 years the majority of the population wouldn't even be able to afford to pay for food or a roof over their head. Look around you and realize how absolutely insane your statement that incomes have been stagnant for 40 years is. Based on US inflation $10,000.00 in 1977 is the equivalent of $46,610.17 in 2017. How stupid can you possibly be to suggest that the job making $10,000 a year in 1977 is stagnant and still making $10,000 a year. Now if you want to refine your claim that the job that was paying $10,000 a year in 1977 is paying $46,610 a year in 2017 there is nothing wrong with that. Why should the purchasing power of a person doing that job go up? Just because? Wrong? You want more out of life... increase your skills and value to EARN that higher income. Nobody is ENTITLED to anything other than the opportunity to work hard and diligently and prove/increase their value through increased knowledge and skills. If you choose to be complacent and put in just enough effort to stay employed in the same role then don't expect your situation to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, BOHICA said: Both are giving somebody elses money to those that didn't earn it. Same with UBI That's a concept beyond doponoggins comprehension. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted February 20, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted February 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, motonoggin said: Holy shit. Trickle down is the idea that if we don't tax the rich, their wealth will trickle down to the rest of us. Redistribution is the idea that we tax those with the most and give it to those with the least. They're totally different ideas. The fact that you can't even get these simple concepts straight shows how fucking backwards the average American's understanding of economics really is. It's sad because you're all getting fucked but you're too goddamned ignorant to realize it. trickle down and redistrubition and UBI are all the same..... Money flowing from top to bottom is the result of all in the end. Its the difference of Honey Crisp, Granny Smith's, and Fuji. They taste slightly different but are still apples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, 02sled said: Where's your support for your totally insane comment. If wages were stagnant for 40 years the majority of the population wouldn't even be able to afford to pay for food or a roof over their head. Look around you and realize how absolutely insane your statement that incomes have been stagnant for 40 years is. Based on US inflation $10,000.00 in 1977 is the equivalent of $46,610.17 in 2017. How stupid can you possibly be to suggest that the job making $10,000 a year in 1977 is stagnant and still making $10,000 a year. Now if you want to refine your claim that the job that was paying $10,000 a year in 1977 is paying $46,610 a year in 2017 there is nothing wrong with that. Why should the purchasing power of a person doing that job go up? Just because? Wrong? You want more out of life... increase your skills and value to EARN that higher income. Nobody is ENTITLED to anything other than the opportunity to work hard and diligently and prove/increase their value through increased knowledge and skills. If you choose to be complacent and put in just enough effort to stay employed in the same role then don't expect your situation to change. Holy shit, you can't even grasp basic economic data. :facepalm: This has zero to do with whether or not you think someone deserves more money. This isn't a subjective debate on merit. This is a discussion on very simple supply and demand principles and basic mathematics. 1+1=2 no matter how much you think 2 doesn't deserve it. Either aggregate wages rise or the debt bubble will pop and we'll all be fucked. Who deserves what for what reason based on your own fucked ideas of merit has absolutely nothing to do with this very basic fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.