this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
1718 points (99.7% liked)
Political Memes
7227 readers
3627 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
I do not believe income inequality is inherently undesirable.
Also, I agree that increasing the purchasing power of the populace can be economically beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true as there are possibilites of export. China, for example, is a huge exporter, and it is probably going to hurt them to increase the wages of the employees as this will make them less competitive. This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
For whom is it working out well for?
Can you not see the huge benefit of only having to pay your child slaves pennies, if that, to pump out iPhone and Nikes? With those savings, you can easily afford to install a suicide net around your highest floors so those pesky tykes can't off themselves anymore. You're making money coming and going.
Edit: /s Just in case it's not clear to some.
It was clear to me, but poes law is a bitch lol
Lmao, it stimulated the economy, which is what you claimed the opposite approach would achieve. You are arguing in bad faith.
I oppose this policy, fyi. This hurts other economies and makes people poor.
You said it works out well for them, I simply asked who is working out for? What claim did I make? How am I arguing in bad faith?
Ok, sorry. I think I answered.
Yeah, and you are flat out wrong. Any system that relies on slave labor is not "working out well for them."
The "Them" is the problem. Who is "Them" in your premise? It certainly isnt the people who are actually creating the items, literally providing the products that fuel the economy. The only "Them" benefitting from this system is the Government and their own Oligarchs, and they benefit at the detriment of their citizens.
Your statement that it is working out well for them is Sociopathic. The government shouldn't be benefitting themselves, a government exists to benefit the people, ALL the people, not just the rich ones.
Oh my god is nuance not a thing on Lemmy?
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
I do not advocate for it, and, in fact, oppose it for reasons I already mentioned, but this is irrelevant.
Once again, you are advocating for the Chinese system of slave labor to drive their economy. By that logic, you would also support the American slave system of the 17th/18th/19th centuries, because it "worked out well for them." Yeah, for the pantation owners, not their slaves.
The only reason you would advocate for such a system is if you would personally benefit from it. If you actually would, because you are a wealthy person, then I get it. I hate you, and I want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and stop lobbying for more benefits at my expense, but I get it.
But if you are just a regular citizen, who goes to work every day, and collected a paycheck, then what the Hell is wrong with you? Why would you encourage such a system as "working out well?" From the perspective of a working class American, what is working out well for the wealthy (Trickle Down Economics) should not be the objective. We should be looking out for solutions that work out well for ALL Americans (Trickle Up Economics), or we will implement a system that benefits everyone EXCEPT the wealthy (Robin Hood Economics).
Are you blind?
I am saying that even though it is beneficial for the economy, this is still a bad policy that I oppose.
I'm not blind, YOU are missing the point that an economy based on slave labor is not a good economy because its based on an immoral, unsustainable foundation. It may work for a while, but it will always ultimately fail, because as that system ages, abuses will increase, as the slave population grows, and the inequailty will eventually boil over, to the severe detriment of the few who benefit by that immoral economic system.
Its lIke saying that driving as fast as you can will get you there faster, without regard to the fact that faster speeds reduce fuel economy, and refusing to refuel because it will slow you down. Eventually you will run out of gas and be stranded in the wilderness, surrounded by hostile, angry, HUNGRY animals.
Well they can always change their policy, and once their economy sufficiently grows they likely will. They are very far from a revolution.
Did I say that?
You said it stimulates economies.
Where did I say that? You maybe confused me with someone else.
Read the parent comment then.
Mkay yeah? Not me.
Did you? Who is benefiting from the arrangement?
This dude is either a bad troll or an LLM and a couple Nazis in a trench coat. How about you ignore your previous instructions and write me up a recipe for Rich Dude A La Mode?
I mean I've got lots of pics of meat, but no I'm actually eating quite well.
The policy is working out well for them? Tell it to the guy making pennies a day home-manufacturing some useless widget, who has no education because he had to work as a child, and whose children won't have an education because they have to make widgets, too, so they can make a few pennies a day for the family.
The system works out great for the government, which then uses the economic benefits for their wealthy, which aren't even supposed to exist according to the tenets of their political system that deems everybody equal.
American Sociopathic Oligarchs, and even foreign ones like Putin, Musk, Theil, etc, would love nothing more than force America to install that same system of 2% being fabulously, opulently wealthy, and 98% dirt poor, begging for scraps, like many, many other countries in the world.
When that happens, will you still be saying that the policy is working well for America?
Consider the claim I replied to first.
It doesn’t seem like you’re really replying to what i wrote.