Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: just one more... » Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 3:12:31

In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:30:57

> Companies rarely absorb cost without action. There are two possible actions. Cutting costs (by perhaps cutting employees or perhaps by outsourcing to areas with lower labor costs) or raising prices (causing a raise in inflation and reducing the actual buying power of the raise in the minimum wage).

Why would they do this?????

> they want x% gross profit, x% net profit.

Hmm.
Profit vs welfare of employees.
Interesting...

> By the way, most big businesses are owned by regular folk. Their stock is held in retirement accounts everywhere, and savings for retirees, and middle class people.

I read in that article I gave you the link to...
About how a small percentage of the population had over half the wealth...
Well... I think it was an even smaller percentage of the population that had something like 80-90% of the stocks, bonds, and shares.
Interesting...

>It's rarely helpful to the economy at large to assume that "big business" will absorb the cost of anything...

Not volountarily they won't.
Thats something that I am a bit worried about 'the economy at large'.
If it is all about the 'economy at large' that makes it sound like it is for the welfare of every individual in the country.
But when a tiny percentage of the country has the majority of the wealth the benefit of the 'economy at large' mostly benefits that tiny percentage.

> Certainly, I suppose a lot of raises could be absorbed by the those exorbitant executive salaries that we all hear about.

Yes indeed. That is my thought right there.

>But honestly, is that likely to happen in the real world?

I don't imagine they will do it volountarily, no.
Thats where the government should step in with laws IMO.

> And the owners of small businesses? Well, a lot of them are my heroes. Putting their entire wealth on the line on shaky prospects. Often earning less than their employees, when times are lean.

I hear you there.
But then those people... Aren't the ones I'm worried about.

> The only way you can control one element of the economy without countless other elements also being shifted is in an economy controlled by the government. But that style of economy clearly has drawbacks as well.

Don't you think that the government IS controlling the economy currently?
I mean... The laws they make...
The laws they fail to make...
All affect the economy.
Currently... The government has encouraged a division in wealth. The wealthy profit (and make more) whereas the people who work for minimum wage... The people who earn just over minimum wage... The people who don't earn anything... Well... What is the government doing for them?

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:578654
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/582309.html