The Rise of Authoritarian Capitalism

[rk9152]

---

@Olderscout66 wrote:

A minimum wage has nothing to do with the value a worker adds to the product, it represents how the society values its members.

But "society" does not pay the salaries. They are paid by the corporations which have to compete with other corporations for the consumers' bucks.

[Olderscout66]

---

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

For the Democrat Party to win votes, they must come up with a message that voters want to hear. Some suggestions would be ideas that would give Americans more opportunity for success like job incentives, lower taxes, less regulations/laws, streamline government, etc. You have a choice: - change or lose!

---

Problem for Republicans is not one of their ideas to give Americans more opportunity for success have EVER WORKED, and never will because they are totally flawed and have nothing to do with "opportunity" or "success".

Their deregulation of Wall Street and the Banksers destroyed the World financial system, threw 40 million Americans out of their jobs and 8 million out of their homes. their deregulation of coal will KILL an ADDITIONAL (added to the 13,000 who are already dying each year) 1400 Americans.

Their numerous taxscams only cut the burden for the very wealthy and actually INCREASE the financial burden for tha average American while eroding our infrastructure, including the schools that educate our children who represent our future, which is why we now rank in the low 20's in just about every measure of well being instead of #1 as we were when the TMR was 91% and 60% of Americans paid virtually no Federal income tax.

[NOTHAPPENING]

---

@Olderscout66 wrote:

A minimum wage has nothing to do with the value a worker adds to the product, it represents how the society values its members.

Republicans see the 99% as fodder for their income and wealth redistribution mechanisms and nothing more.

In 1960, the minimum wage was 48% of the median income for America workers, but thanks to Republicans blocking so many Democratic attempts to increase the minimum wage or to index it to inflation, by 2016 it represents only 28% of the median income.

Now hold that thought and realize that all the OTHER wages paid have that "minimum" as a floor and you'll begin to see that since 1960 the portion of total income going to the top 20% grew from 40% to 51% while the share for every other quintile DECREASED.

The HUGE increases in the pay at the very top were passed on to those in the next 3-4 levels of "power" in the organizations, but for the bottom 80-90%, they actually earn (real income) LESS now then they did when JFK took office.

The GOPerLords have relied on the influx of new gadgets to divert the bottom 99% from noticing how their contribution to the society has been redistributed to the ones who divide the profits. The GOPer base thinks that because they have a plasma TV (cell phone, ipad,Netflix, et al) and grandpa didn't, they're "doing better than gramps".  Hate to consider it, but the movie "Ready Player One" just might be the direct descendent of "Brave New World". Out housing might be stacks of trailers and our life controlled by anyone who can buy up our "IOUs", but we got THE GAME to lose ourselves in, so its okay.

---

As you know already, both Republicans and Democrats OWN companies and the salary the employees make is most certainly the value that they add to the company - little value, little compensation yet you still clamor for government to set salaries. The bottom 99% are voters and they aren't letting the top 1% get away with anything despite the evil left.

[Olderscout66]

A minimum wage has nothing to do with the value a worker adds to the product, it represents how the society values its members.

Republicans see the 99% as fodder for their income and wealth redistribution mechanisms and nothing more.

In 1960, the minimum wage was 48% of the median income for America workers, but thanks to Republicans blocking so many Democratic attempts to increase the minimum wage or to index it to inflation, by 2016 it represents only 28% of the median income.

Now hold that thought and realize that all the OTHER wages paid have that "minimum" as a floor and you'll begin to see that since 1960 the portion of total income going to the top 20% grew from 40% to 51% while the share for every other quintile DECREASED.

The HUGE increases in the pay at the very top were passed on to those in the next 3-4 levels of "power" in the organizations, but for the bottom 80-90%, they actually earn (real income) LESS now then they did when JFK took office.

The GOPerLords have relied on the influx of new gadgets to divert the bottom 99% from noticing how their contribution to the society has been redistributed to the ones who divide the profits. The GOPer base thinks that because they have a plasma TV (cell phone, ipad,Netflix, et al) and grandpa didn't, they're "doing better than gramps".  Hate to consider it, but the movie "Ready Player One" just might be the direct descendent of "Brave New World". Out housing might be stacks of trailers and our life controlled by anyone who can buy up our "IOUs", but we got THE GAME to lose ourselves in, so its okay.

[rk9152]

---

@gruffstuff wrote:

What he omitted however was the overregulation of the housing market giving house to those who cold not realistically afford them leading to the bubble which eventual collapsed.

Falsehood:

Popular right wing talking point, the US government has never required banks to lend money to people who were not creditworthy. 

There was no legislation but there was pressure. plus Fannie Mae contributed greately and when warnings were given, here is an example of the response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPoksfSf2nA

But, more important is the point that the value of an employee is based on his/her contribution to the profits of the company

Companies always have and always will try to reduce the cost of labor, it's why we went from indentured servants to slaves, why businesses moved out of the north to the south, why they left the south for overseas. In a global market place labor is worth what the market says it's worth. You can't talk about the value  of the employee out of one side of your mouth and complain about the " takers " out of the other.

Wal-Mart is one example of great wealth of the owners and low wages for the employees, though it has gotten better since people have been complaining about it.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease, if people want change they have to make it happen, protest, vote, say and do something. If people look at the floor they won't get more.

Naturally companies will always try to get the most for the least, in a competitive market place that is essential. The alternative is a non-competitive market place. Is that what you are recommending?

---

[rk9152]

---

@gordyfl wrote:

Or we could let the government decide the value of an employee. That worked well in the USSR and Cuba.

We didn't become Cuba. We didn't become the USSR. We became "New Deal" Americans.

2:00 to 2:30 of video:

---

Under the new deal a minimum wage was established. But no more. The "Social Justice Warriors" and their supporters use the term "livable wage". Now that get us more towards the government establishing the value of an hour work.

How do you see it, the value of an hours work is determined by the amount that hour contributes to the value of the product or it's value is related to the needs of the worker?

[NOTHAPPENING]

---

@gruffstuff wrote:

Popular right wing talking point, the US government has never required banks to lend money to people who were not creditworthy. 

---

That is a true statement yet the banks no longer care about creditworthiness since they typically now bundle up many mortgages and "sell them" to another financial institution. Both banks know x% of those mortgages are "bad". When I had my first mortgage (many years ago), banks could NOT sell off their bad debt so they were extra careful about who they lent money, how much they made, if their wife was working it counted as 1/2 salary (pregnancy risk?), how long you were employed, credit score, and probably other factors that I'm not aware of.

If you want to fix the mortgage problem, prohibit the sale of mortgages (like the old days) and banks will insure that the person buying a home (or car) is more likely to fulfill their contract.

[gruffstuff]

What he omitted however was the overregulation of the housing market giving house to those who cold not realistically afford them leading to the bubble which eventual collapsed.

Falsehood:

Popular right wing talking point, the US government has never required banks to lend money to people who were not creditworthy. 

But, more important is the point that the value of an employee is based on his/her contribution to the profits of the company

Companies always have and always will try to reduce the cost of labor, it's why we went from indentured servants to slaves, why businesses moved out of the north to the south, why they left the south for overseas. In a global market place labor is worth what the market says it's worth. You can't talk about the value  of the employee out of one side of your mouth and complain about the " takers " out of the other.

Wal-Mart is one example of great wealth of the owners and low wages for the employees, though it has gotten better since people have been complaining about it.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease, if people want change they have to make it happen, protest, vote, say and do something. If people look at the floor they won't get more.

[gordyfl]

Or we could let the government decide the value of an employee. That worked well in the USSR and Cuba.

We didn't become Cuba. We didn't become the USSR. We became "New Deal" Americans.

2:00 to 2:30 of video:

[rk9152]

---

@gordyfl wrote:

Another example of how control not money creates problem is the minimum wage. Now, we could talk about the inflationary effect and how much the bottom of the rung actually benefits.

But, more important is the point that the value of an employee is based on his/her contribution to the profits of the company - not government regulation.

Let the employer determine the value of the employee.

---

Or we could let the government decide the value of an employee. That worked well in the USSR and Cuba.

Do you not see the danger of "Authoritarianism" on both sides?