COVID Economy

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Lol.

"High income earners" are definitely not average americans.

Your interpretation of the economy at this point in time is laughable.

Chicos never did read past the headline of his links.

[jficke13]

Chicos never did read past the headline of his links.

What an odd similarity.

[rocky_warrior]

Back to name calling, nice.

A Jamie is not ashamed of being a Jamie. 

[Pakuni]

A Jamie is not ashamed of being a Jamie.

What's a Jamie?

[tower912]

Scoop term for Karen, thanks to PA2

[jesmu84]

https://qz.com/1925142/us-personal-income-is-lagging-behind-gdp-growth/

Hmmm.

[🏀]

What an odd similarity.

Jamie gonna Jamie.

[shoothoops]

Walmart Economy. (There are countless other examples)

This is it right here in a nutshell.

No one is saying people can't be successful, can't make a lot of money, can't invest their money, can't have nice things.

But the discrepancy between average worker pay and executive pay requires immediate attention.

https://twitter.com/davidmwessel/status/1322891969589317634?s=19

[mu_hilltopper]

But the discrepancy between average worker pay and executive pay requires immediate attention.

https://twitter.com/davidmwessel/status/1322891969589317634?s=19

I understand how enormous the differences are between the 1% and .1% and the 99%.  -- Enormous isn't even the right word, maybe galactic is closer.

And I certainly "feel" like the gap is very wrong and needs to be fixed.  But .. I've never been sure as to if it matters.   

Yes, we should continue and augment poverty programs, yes, we should invest heavily in economic mobility programs, yes we should tax the upper 1% far more.   

I'm not convinced that having 700 billionaires is necessarily a bad thing, preventing society from succeeding. 

Change my mind.

[Uncle Rico]

I understand how enormous the differences are between the 1% and .1% and the 99%.  -- Enormous isn't even the right word, maybe galactic is closer.

And I certainly "feel" like the gap is very wrong and needs to be fixed.  But .. I've never been sure as to if it matters.   

Yes, we should continue and augment poverty programs, yes, we should invest heavily in economic mobility programs, yes we should tax the upper 1% far more.   

I'm not convinced that having 700 billionaires is necessarily a bad thing, preventing society from succeeding. 

Change my mind.

I think the greater problem is when the government "works for the little guy" but the biggest benefactors end up being the uber rich.

[The Sultan]

I think the greater problem is when the government "works for the little guy" but the biggest benefactors end up being the uber rich.

This. I don't think income and wealth differentiation is as big of a problem as government programs and taxation that doesn't help lead to more equitable opportunities.

[mu_hilltopper]

I agree with both of you.  No doubt the current structure of politicians, campaign finance, and the exercise of power clearly benefits the wealthy 100x.

But .. it's not beyond imagination that the political winds change.  While both parties are suspect, there's no wing of the GOP pushing for the little guy.  It's not beyond imagination that AOC and/or Bernie Sanders' makes positive change for the little guy.  -- It's an uphill battle, but possible.   They won't eliminate billionaires. 

I guess the point is .. it's the voters who enable the "bad" political behavior.    You could have billionaires and excellent poverty and upward mobility programs at the same time.

[shoothoops]

This. I don't think income and wealth differentiation is as big of a problem as government programs and taxation that doesn't help lead to more equitable opportunities.

It's of course both. These are not livable wages in many examples. 

[jesmu84]

I understand how enormous the differences are between the 1% and .1% and the 99%.  -- Enormous isn't even the right word, maybe galactic is closer.

And I certainly "feel" like the gap is very wrong and needs to be fixed.  But .. I've never been sure as to if it matters.   

Yes, we should continue and augment poverty programs, yes, we should invest heavily in economic mobility programs, yes we should tax the upper 1% far more.   

I'm not convinced that having 700 billionaires is necessarily a bad thing, preventing society from succeeding. 

Change my mind.

https://youtu.be/swOpLpZaA78

IMO, it's a problem, but not sure how much. Easy fixes would be to treat labor and capital equally as well as guarantee minimum wage keeps up with inflation, cost of living or productivity.

[GooooMarquette]

No question you can have billionaires and an economy that helps the less fortunate. The problem is that our government has increasingly helped the billionaires get even wealthier, instead of helping those at the bottom end.

A good metaphor is the 'level playing field' concept. We don't have a level playing field, and probably shouldn't even have one. Unfortunately, our playing field is tilted in favor of those who need help the least, instead of those who need it the most. IMO it should be turned around; not to the point that we eliminate billionaires, but to the point where the less fortunate can still live decent lives.

[The Sultan]

I agree with both of you.  No doubt the current structure of politicians, campaign finance, and the exercise of power clearly benefits the wealthy 100x.

But .. it's not beyond imagination that the political winds change.  While both parties are suspect, there's no wing of the GOP pushing for the little guy.  It's not beyond imagination that AOC and/or Bernie Sanders' makes positive change for the little guy.  -- It's an uphill battle, but possible.   They won't eliminate billionaires. 

I guess the point is .. it's the voters who enable the "bad" political behavior.    You could have billionaires and excellent poverty and upward mobility programs at the same time.

The Gilded Age lead to the Progressive Era. It can happen again.

[shoothoops]

I certainly agree with some of the above. But, in addition to that, average workers at many places are vastly underpaid. The wealthy execs can still be wealthy execs and pay taxes, pay living wages etc...not enough discussion here about pay, in addition to the other things, with which I agree.

The Walton family has increased their wealth by $45 billion since March.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-30/u-s-billionaires-got-1-trillion-richer-in-trump-s-first-term?__twitter_impression=true

Jeff Bezos could pay every Amazon employee $105,000 and still have as much money as he did before the Pandemic.

Federal minimum wage is the same as it was the previous decade, $7.25. (states vary).

It's also about not paying your employees enough money and benefits, while still maintaining your higher standard of living. And it is not just billionaires.

[Pakuni]

No question you can have billionaires and an economy that helps the less fortunate. The problem is that our government has increasingly helped the billionaires get even wealthier, instead of helping those at the bottom end.

A good metaphor is the 'level playing field' concept. We don't have a level playing field, and probably shouldn't even have one. Unfortunately, our playing field is tilted in favor of those who need help the least, instead of those who need it the most. IMO it should be turned around; not to the point that we eliminate billionaires, but to the point where the less fortunate can still live decent lives.

Yep, this.
The problem isn't that billionaires exist (and will continue to exist). The problem is an economic system and government policies - specifically tax policies - that are rigged in favor of those billionaires.

[mu_hilltopper]

Yep, this.
The problem isn't that billionaires exist (and will continue to exist). The problem is an economic system and government policies - specifically tax policies - that are rigged in favor of those billionaires.

I agree ..//  it is a different problem than wealth inequality. 

[tower912]

I certainly agree with some of the above. But, in addition to that, average workers at many places are vastly underpaid. The wealthy execs can still be wealthy execs and pay taxes, pay living wages etc...not enough discussion here about pay, in addition to the other things, with which I agree.

The Walton family has increased their wealth by $45 billion since March.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-30/u-s-billionaires-got-1-trillion-richer-in-trump-s-first-term?__twitter_impression=true

Jeff Bezos could pay every Amazon employee $105,000 and still have as much money as he did before the Pandemic.

Federal minimum wage is the same as it was the previous decade, $7.25. (states vary).

It's also about not paying your employees enough money and benefits, while still maintaining your higher standard of living. And it is not just billionaires.

And Henry Ford figured out that paying his employees enough created more customers for his products.   If Bezos paid all of his employees even $90k, how much more business would it create for him?
Pushing capital down leads to more spending.  Concentrating wealth constricts spending.    More spending is simply better for the economy, tax revenues, etc.

Trickle down simply doesn't work.

[jesmu84]

And Henry Ford figured out that paying his employees enough created more customers for his products.   If Bezos paid all of his employees even $90k, how much more business would it create for him?
Pushing capital down leads to more spending.  Concentrating wealth constricts spending.    More spending is simply better for the economy, tax revenues, etc.

Trickle down simply doesn't work.

I will never again vote for a candidate or group who believes in trickle down policy.

[mu_hilltopper]

And Henry Ford figured out that paying his employees enough created more customers for his products.   If Bezos paid all of his employees even $90k, how much more business would it create for him?
Pushing capital down leads to more spending.  Concentrating wealth constricts spending.    More spending is simply better for the economy, tax revenues, etc.

Trickle down simply doesn't work.

Devil's advocate here, but .. notwithstanding COVID, on the whole, consumer spending is bonkers high.   We buy more and more crap like there's no tomorrow.     We buy new cell phones every 3 years.   Our caloric intake climbs every decade as we transition to a diet of delicious sugar filled processed food instead of crappy vegetables.  Our pets have Halloween costumes. 

Admittedly, spending is lumpy across the economic quadrants, but it grows higher for each.   -- Of course, computer robots can't come soon enough so we can get rid of pesky human labor, so we have that to look forward to.

[shoothoops]

Disclaimer: The stock market is not the economy.

A comparison of Presidential stock market performance:

S&P performance first term:

Obama 66.1%
Clinton 62.1 %
GHW Bush 45.9%
Trump 44.5% (during 40% Corporate Tax Rate Reduction)
GW Bush -15.8%

https://www.axios.com/trump-stock-market-performance-eclipsed-obama-c41ce790-13a1-400a-afd2-84f903e56745.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

[Dish]

I got RIF'd this morning (along with 800 other people). It sucks, really sucks. To those of you who have lost jobs this year, I feel your pain.

Will get through this, but pretty bummed out (I was having a great sales year, even with Covid).

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Sorry to hear.  Awful news.