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.
Let's say I am an employer and have $50,000 in unexpected profits.
I can give it to my minimum wage, working poor, employees as a bonus or I can give it to my wealthy investors as dividends.
When I give it to my workers instead on the investors did the investors lose out on potential income? Are they poorer because of my choice to reward my workers? The investors don't have as much as they could have had because someone else won and they lost.
So yes, when someone takes a bigger slice of a finite income pie, everyone else gets less.
Exactly how does ones wealth have anything to do with another being poor?
If they are drawing income from a monopoly. Kind falls under the obvious category.
You think these guys earned it burning oil at midnight? I mean are you dumb or something?
How many companies has Oracle and Microsoft bought out? Buying up the competition has two components. One of them is a gain in efficiency, which can be legit but is frankly a good cover for something more sinister. The income that is derived from pricing power gained through the death of a competitor takes money from everyone else including the poor.
Let's say I am an employer and have $50,000 in unexpected profits.
I can give it to my minimum wage, working poor, employees as a bonus or I can give it to my wealthy investors as dividends.
When I give it to my workers instead on the investors did the investors lose out on potential income? Are they poorer because of my choice to reward my workers? The investors don't have as much as they could have had because someone else won and they lost.
So yes, when someone takes a bigger slice of a finite income pie, everyone else gets less.
Only in an example as weak as the one you put forth here. Out here in the real world, it resembles nothing of the sort.
Let's say I am an employer and have $50,000 in unexpected profits.
I can give it to my minimum wage, working poor, employees as a bonus or I can give it to my wealthy investors as dividends.
When I give it to my workers instead on the investors did the investors lose out on potential income? Are they poorer because of my choice to reward my workers? The investors don't have as much as they could have had because someone else won and they lost.
So yes, when someone takes a bigger slice of a finite income pie, everyone else gets less.
oh brother, your back with that dribble.. I note you didnt answer my question last asked to you, so let me ask you again.
During periods of recessions, where does the wealth go? According to you, wealth is a finite resource so it must go somewhere..
Quote:
Originally Posted by overdose
Because there can only be rich people is there are poor people. Just like there can only be poor people when there exist people who are richer than them. Simply fact.
Wrong.. Say you have a town of 100 people, 1 owns a factory, the other 99 work for that factory.
1 rich person, but the other 99 people arent poor.
Buying the competition is everywhere in the real world. I remember the groans when IBM bought out Informix because everyone knew IBM was boxing them in again.
Buying the competition is everywhere in the real world. I remember the groans when IBM bought out Informix because everyone knew IBM was boxing them in again.
Thats not an example because microsoft BOUGHT those companies thus making the owners of those companies wealthy.
Thats not an example because microsoft BOUGHT those companies thus making the owners of those companies wealthy.
The thread was how does it make people poor. That make people poor because of Microsoft's market dominance where I saw them stifle competition right in front of my face. Was I hallucinating when they polluted the APIs on the Java IDE?
You obviously don't know much about the join us or die negotiating techniques as was discovered by Blue Mountain Arts or others that chose to resist. They were made as rich as was allowed under the threat of facing off against a monopoly.
Oh, boy. The "living wage" argument again. Wouldn't it be awesome if everyone earned $30 per hour and paid $19 for a Big Mac?!
Yipppeeee!!!!!
You think McDonald's couldn't pay $30/hr and not have to charge $19 for a Big Mac? Oh boy, the "if we pay workers more we have to pass the costs on to the consumer" argument again. Wouldn't it be awesome if corporations held their executives and their shareholders to reasonable levels of compensation and dividends? Maybe it would take them 5x as long to become billionaires but they would, eventually, and in the meantime everyone else could at least live a little better.
To what? Not knowing anything about economics? Where is this fairy land of the pie always getting bigger? What economic model by *any* school of economics supports this ridiculous notion? Let me guess, another arm chair guy who economized on his education.
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.
