Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But nope, they instead just spend it on some useless crap that has zero effect on the market other then buying up houses and flipping it to the next millionaire.
They have far more than they need, and wish to turn their $$$ into $$$$. Investing in the research, design, and production of consumer products and services has limited upside (low demand), with wages being flat and debt nearly maxed out. So they inflate assets. Stock prices, RE, collectables, etc.
They need to spend it on something that can actually have a real affect on the working class. Go buy some picture frames at the local frame shop to show off your million dollar paintings, or take your car to a local hand wash company and besure to tip some benjies to the person cleaning it. But nope, they instead just spend it on some useless crap that has zero effect on the market other then buying up houses and flipping it to the next millionaire.
The wealthy do buy picture frames and car washes and cucumbers and even cars... but almost no amount of spending by the 1% at the general consumer level is going to be significant. Sure, Joe Gotrocks probably spends $200k a year on "consumer goods" while a working class family gets by on only $25-30k in equivalent expenditures... but that's economic pocket change, fairly stable and not significant given the small pool of big spenders in this category.
There's no real category of spending by the wealthy that leads to any kind of redistribution of wealth. They don't spend that much more than the 80% on bumwad and tipple, and their big purchases tend to go to other elites and not appear in the general economy. (Veblenites will point out that construction of new chateaux etc. do put money into a certain segment of construction and supply chains, but that's often a small percentage of the purchase/value of such things.)
So what is it you're suggesting? That the price of TP be proportional to net worth? The poor get it for a buck, we get it for ten, and Joe up there has to pay $100?
Sure, or save gold. But you might not need more wealth if your lifestyle is satisfied.
What does your statement have to do with the comment I made? It has nothing to do with lifestyle and satisfaction. The great majority of people would consider a $50k/yr income "better" than $25k/yr. If $50k is more than they need to be "satisfied", then I guess they'll have the burden of figuring out who to give the excess to.
What does your statement have to do with the comment I made? It has nothing to do with lifestyle and satisfaction. The great majority of people would consider a $50k/yr income "better" than $25k/yr. If $50k is more than they need to be "satisfied", then I guess they'll have the burden of figuring out who to give the excess to.
I thought by 50% wage cut you were referring to inflation.
Eh? You can accumulate a *lot* more wealth with 2x the salary...
"Can." Most do not. They just expand their consumption to fit available income. (And very little of that consumption builds wealth, even in "treasures" - no TV, be it Vizio or Bang&Olufsen, is worth 10% of its cost in five years.)
The wealthy do buy picture frames and car washes and cucumbers and even cars... but almost no amount of spending by the 1% at the general consumer level is going to be significant. Sure, Joe Gotrocks probably spends $200k a year on "consumer goods" while a working class family gets by on only $25-30k in equivalent expenditures... but that's economic pocket change, fairly stable and not significant given the small pool of big spenders in this category.
There's no real category of spending by the wealthy that leads to any kind of redistribution of wealth. They don't spend that much more than the 80% on bumwad and tipple, and their big purchases tend to go to other elites and not appear in the general economy. (Veblenites will point out that construction of new chateaux etc. do put money into a certain segment of construction and supply chains, but that's often a small percentage of the purchase/value of such things.)
So what is it you're suggesting? That the price of TP be proportional to net worth? The poor get it for a buck, we get it for ten, and Joe up there has to pay $100?
Right, like another poster said. Its just the rich feeding off the rich, not the rich help feeding the working class. They can invest in local community projects, or donate to a worthy cause that helps the process. Some may do but im sure their is alot of them that dont, unless their tax advisory tells them to do it. They can go to a local bakery ( local as mom and pop place)and ask them to cater their next million dollar event, without negotiation on price. There is alot they can do but refuse to do it, that can have a huge trickle down affect to the working class.
Not really. No economic statement that includes "trickle down" has any meaning at all.
Unless you consider significant compensation increases, proportional to profits, and equitable stock sharing to be "trickles."
or unless the own a business and give employee raises, or wait till they get their tax relief and fire people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
