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.
Some companies want to horde the savings to make their books look good to investors, then you got others that invest in their employees such as Costco.
There is no reason for companies to give it to employees. The amount you have to pay to retain the employees you want is determined by supply and demand of workers, and the tax cut doesn't change that. That's why nearly all the tax cut has gone to owners and stock holders.
If you pay better wages, then you can be choosy about who you hire. Costco figures it is worth it for the customer demographic they are going after, and they are probably right. If the national MW was $12/hr they'd have to pay more to acheive the same thing.
It's also worth pointing out that since I started paying attention back when Carter was president, the Republicans are deficit hawks when democrats are president, and turn 180 degrees when they are able to control policy. Tax cuts result in higher deficits, which is economically stimulative. It targets the wrong people though... giving more to people who won't spend it and also won't invest it in production because demand is depressed!
There is no reason for companies to give it to employees. The amount you have to pay to retain the employees you want is determined by supply and demand of workers, and the tax cut doesn't change that. That's why nearly all the tax cut has gone to owners and stock holders.
If you pay better wages, then you can be choosy about who you hire. Costco figures it is worth it for the customer demographic they are going after, and they are probably right. If the national MW was $12/hr they'd have to pay more to acheive the same thing.
It's also worth pointing out that since I started paying attention back when Carter was president, the Republicans are deficit hawks when democrats are president, and turn 180 degrees when they are able to control policy. Tax cuts result in higher deficits, which is economically stimulative. It targets the wrong people though... giving more to people who won't spend it and also won't invest it in production because demand is depressed!
They can do it, but they refer not to. I Guess its easier to replace people then to keep them happy, but would make darn sure the stock holders and/or VPs would get their bonus checks every year and twice on Christmas. Sometimes business can get too greedy with their profits and not reinvest in to their company, and just horde it.
My company I work for, got a break and issue some checks as were profit sharing company. It made a huge difference in people life and turn around dropped. Every 6 months we get a check, and its always 4 figures. Do they have to, No. They do it to keep employees happy and able to pay them decent wages according to the COL in the area. If they see rents rising, they adjust pay to help offset it. Just have to let them know your rent increased by % and they be happy to help out. I just make sure my LL doesnt know i got a raise, so he wont adjust it again. Now he just does it because the Jones across the street is doing it. Back to the topic.. Business can give out more then they want, its the "WANT" that they neglect to do.
They can do it, but they refer not to. I Guess its easier to replace people then to keep them happy, but would make darn sure the stock holders and/or VPs would get their bonus checks every year and twice on Christmas. Sometimes business can get too greedy with their profits and not reinvest in to their company, and just horde it.
Maximizing profits is the corporate mandate. They aren't charity organizations, and no one should expect them to give $$$ away without reason.
The behaviors of all the players in the economic system are manipulated and controlled by laws. From the early 1930s to ~1980 we had policies and laws that were very effective at supporting wages/demand. The economy was extremely robust in this period. Then policies were changed to favor profit and depress wages. Demand was kept boosted by the one shot historical episode of women joining the workforce, and escalating debt (private and fiscal). Fiat currency, loose credit, and "free" trade made it possible. 40 years later here we are with workforce participation and fiscal and private debt pretty much maxed out. Wages still suck. The top 0.1% is 10x richer in real terms. Is there any mystery why this happened? Follow the money...
Maximizing profits is the corporate mandate. They aren't charity organizations, and no one should expect them to give $$$ away without reason.
The behaviors of all the players in the economic system are manipulated and controlled by laws. From the early 1930s to ~1980 we had policies and laws that were very effective at supporting wages/demand. The economy was extremely robust in this period. Then policies were changed to favor profit and depress wages. Demand was kept boosted by the one shot historical episode of women joining the workforce, and escalating debt (private and fiscal). Fiat currency, loose credit, and "free" trade made it possible. 40 years later here we are with workforce participation and fiscal and private debt pretty much maxed out. Wages still suck. The top 0.1% is 10x richer in real terms. Is there any mystery why this happened? Follow the money...
So best way to get things back in order is to change the policy.
I agree with your supply side argument. It is closely linked with trickle down theory. Regretfully Costco's response is the exception rather than the rule.
A more correct example of demand side is that since those Costco workers now have more money to spend, They can now buy more goods and services with their increase in salary.
Cutting wages at Amazon had nothing to do with demand. It will ultimately reduce demand for goods and services in that area. Goods and services is what supply side and demand side is all about. Cutting hours is a different thing entirely. In fact if the public is dissatisfied with the reduced level of service they may go somewhere else.
The fatal flaw in your nonsense is that period cannot be compared with any other period, since the global economic situation is vastly different.
The US traded very little with any other countries. What was there about the "global situation" that would have had a positive effect on the US economy?
The things that did have an effect were much higher income and corporate taxes, and much higher union involvement.
I agree with your supply side argument. It is closely linked with trickle down theory. Regretfully Costco's response is the exception rather than the rule.
A more correct example of demand side is that since those Costco workers now have more money to spend, They can now buy more goods and services with their increase in salary.
Cutting wages at Amazon had nothing to do with demand. It will ultimately reduce demand for goods and services in that area. Goods and services is what supply side and demand side is all about. Cutting hours is a different thing entirely. In fact if the public is dissatisfied with the reduced level of service they may go somewhere else.
The OP's post had nothing to do with supply or demand side economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
The reason the OP's post was ridiculous is because he cited Costco as being the beneficiary of the republican tax cuts, but he completely forgot that Whole Foods was also a beneficiary of the exact same tax cuts! So he went on to cite Costco both raising wages and keeping hours intact as somehow being an example of "supply side economics" while Whole Foods also raised wages but had to cut hours, and somehow concluded that was an example of "demand side economics." But the stupid thing is that Whole Foods got the exact same tax cut Costco did, so why should Costco be an example of "supply side economics" while Whole Foods wasn't?
People need to get in the habit of thinking about what they're writing, before they write it.
The reason the OP's post was ridiculous is because he cited Costco as being the beneficiary of the republican tax cuts, but he completely forgot that Whole Foods was also a beneficiary of the exact same tax cuts! So he went on to cite Costco both raising wages and keeping hours intact as somehow being an example of "supply side economics" while Whole Foods also raised wages but had to cut hours, and somehow concluded that was an example of "demand side economics."
Now that is what I call a surgical takedown of an argument!
Supply- and demand-side are macro fiscal policies. The efficacy of each needs to be weighed with broad national data over a period of years, not with anecdotes based on one company or another.
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.
