Mommy, why are poor people poor?Follow

Well I wouldn't say drastically. 11.5% more revenue would still be 11.5% more money left at the individual franchise, which still equates to making more money at the end of the year to be distributed out at the end. So no it really wouldn't change the outcome of a franchise being able to increase their employees pay, with the proprietor of the franchise retaining his expected income as well.

Whether you add it in before or after 11.5% is 11.5%. of whichever number, and +11.5% is more than -12.5% In any calculation.


Edited, Oct 27th 2013 10:41am by rdmcandie

No not really. In fact coming from revenues provides more incentive to apply wage increase simply because wages come out before the money gets taxed, If it applies to profits only that it has already been taxed and owner/operator doesn't really have any reason to increase wages. 12% before or after costs is still extra income to go around, no matter how you cut it.


Alternatively though, a profit sharing on corporate profits (not local franchise business profits) is an entirely different thing and doesn't actually impact on the local level at all, well except more people having more money to spend in the community, which gives everyone more money. Which really makes the discussion of franchise profits redundant, because its the Corporation of McDonalds making 8.9B not the local McD's owners. (they get ****** just as much as everyone else.)


But no, 12.5% from revenue, or 12.5% of profits doesn't really change how people get paid, people get paid based on what their bosses feel like paying them, and all across the world some of those occupations pay to damn low.

Edited, Oct 27th 2013 11:51pm by rdmcandie

The actual amount of Americans under the 27Kish point of living without Government Assistance is over 50%. You can see this simply by looking at the census data. Median really has no merit in discussion when you have data on the actual percentage value of people. But continue to argue about how Median means this and median means that when A) Your median value is wrong (do the math yourself if you know how) and B) Median doesn't represent the % of Americans only the dollar amount of Americans.



False the American middle class remained relatively the same size as a percentage of the population up until about 1986 (also in your census records). Since 1986 the American middle class has been declining on the negative side. Some have become more wealthy many more have become less wealthy. The % of population deemed middle class is smaller than it was from 1950-1987. So relatively speaking the cost of living increases have outpaced income increases resulting in more people entering poverty.



Right the cost of a house has risen, I said that. I also said that income has not grown to match the increase. I mean all of those things you mentioned are required by law to be in a home (they are called building codes). If the average income of America was keeping pace with the required spending then a house today would still be 21% of Income. It isn't because houses cost more, and bills associated with them have as well, if as you say Income has risen proportionately to cost of living, then the average expenditure of Americans for housing would not be 45% of their income...would it.



Actually it hasn't food cost has only decrease by about 14% since 1950. So ya you can get 14% more food for your house that costs you 24% more. Still 10% short on your Cost to Income %...and we haven't even discussed health care or auto insurance yet.



No actually it has been a common trend since around 1984. Prior to that most Americans were doing well. The first real issue arose about midway through the 80's and was hastened by the Savings and Loans issues. It rebounded through the 90's and began to decline again in the late 90's entering the 2000's when Enron and such were @#%^ing markets. Its exclamation point was in 2008 with the Derivative Market collapse. It is not a selective cherry picking, the number of Americans earning bellow the rate of required assistance and entering poverty has been growing on an almost consistent average since 1986. (this is in your Census records)

There are more people as a percentage of population in the US on government assistance than any period in history. (maybe the 30's but there is no real data since social programs didn't really exist). again this is easily noted in the stark rises to cost of government assistance programs, also in your census records. Simply average out the annual increase vs the average cost of living and you can see that annually since the 80's more people have entered some form of government assistance program be it health care, food stamps, or housing assistance. (again it is very simple math and the numbers are all available via your countries census records.)



More people are on government assistance because they can not afford to live without it. Houses consume 45% of income, increases to REQUIRED health and vehicle insurances have compounded the cost of living, the amount save in basic foods is minimal and does not cover the increases to cost. If incomes grew at the same rate a costs then the values to cost of living would not be some 20% out of whack with income growth. But they are and people require government to help. This is clearly exemplified in all your governments data going back over 50 years.

The free market is dead and has been since it was conceived. Free market capitalism bred only one thing, control. In 1960 there were over 3000 individual media distributors in the USA. Today there are 6. If not for anitmonopoly laws in the US there would be less, look no further than Microsoft, and AT&T as examples of antimonopoly. Free market Capitalism is essentially highlander, there can be only one. But, that being said, Free market capitalism also breeds corporate capitalism, where corporations who can't continue to buy out instead buy government. This is documented throughout US politics and Global politics (everyone wants to buy influence.), but when government grants outright protections to corporate entities (see Monasanto) there is now a breach of trust and of the free market.

Capitalism is great, if done properly. Unfortunately the belief of equal opportunity died a long time ago in the US and all thats left is greed. When they dissolved the gold standard and changed the game from Value of currency, to amount of valueless currency. It is an insolvent system that is designed to decay, it has no other path than deterioration. It is unsustainable because it dictates minimization, less and less competition every year, maximize profits, and dominate the market. Hardly free in any sense of the term.




First thing we need to do is force corporations to distribute profits. There is no reason corporations should be experiencing over twice as much growth as the nation or its people. Secondly we need to stop banks from printing cash, National growth hasn't kept up with profits, personal income hasn't kept up with profits, yet they are sky rocketing at over 2 times either....where is the money coming from. Thirdly we need to abolish international currency standard and rely on our trade to dictate international value.

If everyone in the US was making 60K/yr on average, and it only cost 27K/yr to provide for ones self without government, this would eliminate government assistance spending. Furthermore it provides every working person in the US 33K spending money, which is in turn put back into the economy of the US. Now imagine that globally, everyone making 30K more than they need to live, this drives up extra spending globally which means more product must be produced globally, this means more jobs (and more money) globally.

What we have is a decaying cycle, money and money value are ever cycling towards an inevitable minimalist system, what we need is money to be expanded to a maximizing system, a positive growth cycle. The more money people have the more they will spend, the more they spend the more product is needed the more is needed the more people needed to make it, the more people making it the more money entering the system.

We Capitalist societies need to do a stark 180 and move from a Free market society into a Social society, where you have the opportunity to succeed based on what you do, not on a companies stock value, or their ability to borrow money. Society needs to put money back in the hands of people, we need our positive growth cycle, not continued degeneration by design.



Edited, Nov 1st 2013 1:54am by rdmcandie

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 10:02am by rdmcandie

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 10:02am by rdmcandie

ITT: Everyone's an economist.

I'm just here for the proteins.

Just saying "everyone is worse off!!!" over and over isn't helpful.

The middle class is worse off relative to the wealthy. By a fair margin. Fairly easy to demonstrate by comparing GDP per capita adjusted for inflation to median income adjusted for inflation. The two measures track each other fairly closely from the 40's to about the 80's when they begin and then continue to diverge markedly with GDP per capita far outpacing median income. The rising tide may have very slightly lifted all boats since the 80's but it's certainly lifted yachts much, much, much higher than fishing boats.

Only the crappy boats, and who cares about them?

So what? Is the middle class worse off today than they were in 1950? Isn't that was really matters? Is the fact that your 50" flat screen HDTV is better than the 32" CRT equivalent from 20 years ago negated by the fact that someone with more money owns 5 of them? I think that's a ridiculous way of determining "better/worse off".



Again: Who cares? Why does this matter? You are measuring the wrong thing.

What about a used second(third?)hand kayak?

I, for one, am shocked that the GOP loses almost every demographic that's not middle/upper class older white dudes these days.

Today the largest % of Americans in history live in poverty, the largest % of Americans in history struggle to provide basic living requirements, the largest % of Americans in history are on Government Assistance (again 30's could have been worse but there isn't really any data on social spending on the government level as most of it didn't exist until well into the great depression). The simple fact is the majority of your population doesn't really have a choice, their choice is to go looking for Government assistance, or slip deeper into the negatives...Most American families can not afford a home, so they rent, or sublet, most American families can not afford basic medical insurance, so they go without or get government assistance, 17% of American families can not afford both dwellings and food, so they go without or they look for government assistance.

Most Americans can not afford to live in America. That is what it comes down to, and that is what the data shows. Poverty is rising, strain on Government assistance and dependence is rising, the middle class is shrinking every year by nearly 10% of wealth value, and there are more and more people who simply fall out of the system all together and wind up living in the streets. over half (ie. Most) of your nation can not provide a moderate standard of living without assistance from the Government....this means they don't have disposable money, they don't have enough money, they can not afford moderate living without assistance from others...its very very simple math.



Of course you disagree with it, it is why you are also obtuse enough to believe that everything is hunky dory and people have money shooting out their ***, and just choose not to spend it how they should be spending it. I think its great you stick to your convictions how ever mathematically incorrect they are. Free market Capitalism has run its course whether you wish to believe otherwise or not, it doesn't take long to find markets where the free market no longer exists, Media, Telecom, and Financial institutions have already expired in the Free Market, barring some revocation of antimonopoly laws these sectors have reached their free market Zenith.

But hey, those are just the facts.





Edited, Nov 2nd 2013 1:14pm by rdmcandie

Is this neighbor singular or neighbor plurality? If it's the plurality you'd be worse of because fiat currency is a placeholder for value, not real wealth. If money is raining from the sky and falls primarily in your neighbors yard, and some in your yard, sure whatever, go pick it up. It's fantasy land at any rate.

They had problems due to a focus not on creating consumer wealth but entrenching a bureaucracy.

There is an argument to be made for infrastructure in lieu of transfers, but in the current economic landscape arguing for austerity is a strategically foolish third way.

Again your microeconomics en masse isn't the same thing as macro petit, much the same way the plural of anecdote is not data, nor is the reverse. There are other problems with this, but i'm going to try to make a concise point.


Edited, Nov 4th 2013 10:56pm by Timelordwho