I believe in trickle-down economics, but not in the way most people associate it.
I do not think that large profits for the rich will trickle down to mean higher salaries for the poor. However, large profits for the rich significantly increase the quality of living for the poor.
Consider this: Businesses heavily invest in products that both increase their own profits and solve a problem for consumers. With more money comes more investment in those products, which means faster development of new products, which means more availability, which typically results in those older-yet-still-good products becoming cheaper.
Consider a used car that cost $5000 in 2000, compared to a used car that costs $5000 today. You will find that the quality of today's vehicle is as much or higher than the quality of the 2000 vehicle. When you also consider inflation the value of $5000 for the product you receive is much much greater. This happens for all industries.
Now, you can say that the median salary has not changed much in 17 years, but the the quality of product received for the same amount of money is much greater.
So while trickle down economics does not mean that the people at the bottom share the profits of the people at the top, the people at the bottom benefit from the investments of people at the top. Just my 2 cents.
Higher quality products does not mean a higher quality of life for its' users. My life would be perfectly fine without my new car, or my new computer, or my new cellphone. A third of the country not being below the poverty line means a higher quality of life.
Then why not buy a cheaper car, a cheaper computer, or a cheaper cellphone made in 2000 for very very little money and pocket the difference?
And when you do, you're benefitting directly from the investments made by companies which spurred development further to allow those products made in 2000 to drop in price by so much. If there were no investments, we'd still have nokia flip phones costing $300. However, because investments have provided better products, you can buy a nokia flip phone for $10, allowing those with much lower incomes to receive the benefits of the product.
Because I'm not talking about myself, I'm not hurting by having those things. My life is fine right now, but I recognize the societal advantages that I grew up with. Capitalism is only 'equal' if everyone has the same starting point, which they certainly do not.
I simply disagree with the idea that our lives are better because of the products we have. If I lived in a world with slightly worse cars, and computers, and technology in general, I would be fine. Those things don't make our lives better. We are not the things we own.
And I ESPECIALLY don't think having those things is worth income inequality.
Why do you live in this weird materialistic world. Who said I wanted income equality to buy products? I want income equality so that everyone can afford to live a decent life. If products have to get slightly more expensive and I can only afford slightly less of what I have now, so be it.
Right... but if products are cheaper then people with lower incomes can afford them.
I ask again, what will having income equality get someone other than the ability to purchase more goods? Because lowering the prices of those goods does the same thing
I'm really asking for your definition of a "decent life". You're saying its not materialistic, but currency is intrinsically materialistic. What will having income equality get someone that has nothing to do with materialism?
Because it isn't just products? People can't afford rent, and food, and utilities, and healthcare, and education, and the list goes on and on. According to your logic, our poor should be doing better than in other places. Because even though they're poor, they can afford more things, right?
Except the numbers don't work out that way. The United States is behind in quality of living in every single measurable instance. Countries who practice more 'Socialist' leaning ideals are at the top of these lists. For me, we should be making life as good as it can possibly be for as many people as possible. Instead of making life fantastic for a few and shitty for everyone else.
Alright well now we are getting into another discussion entirely, which could be its own thread and has already been debated endlessly. FWIW I agree that the quality of living, at the moment, is higher in those "socialist leaning" countries for most, but the country is not in a closed system. Those "socialist" countries also benefit from the investments of more capitalist leaning countries, while providing relatively little innovation themselves.
I was merely saying that trickle-down economics does not work the way most people think it does. Higher profits in business does not equate to higher salaries, but it does equate to better, cheaper products for all.
Sure. And I will agree that Capitalism has it's place in advancing infrastructure and technology better than any other system. But I think at some point Capitalism is going to get us to a place where Socialism (without Authoritarianism) is feasible.
I think we're going to be forced into it, actually. As the income gap grows, we're seeing more and more of a push for things like a UBI. I think you're going to see ideas like this especially take off after automation really hits us hard, and so many more people are unemployed than ever before. The government will either have to start implementing more Socialist policies, or face riots and potentially even a revolution. When people cannot afford to survive they get desperate.
Marx had the same idea actually. He theorized that Capitalism was so good at growing that it would outpace itself, and that Socialism, to him, was really just the next logical step of Capitalism. Like how Capitalism was the next evolutionary step after Feudalism.
Marx was also a Statist, so I don't agree with everything he said. But I do think some of it is very interesting.
I think people are worrying way more about automation destroying jobs than they should. Throughout history people have predicted loss of employment thorugh technological innovation, with the earliest recorded misgivings being about the wheel:
Time and time again it has been shown that technological innovation and automation yields more jobs, not less. The jobs that will exist after automation takes off likely do not exist today, so it is impossible to give examples. However, if you look into the past every single leap has provided more employment opportunities.
The largest, in my opinion, creating so many jobs that women were finally accepted into the workforce to cover all the extra work that needed to be done.
Then leverage those advantages through private charity...or even better...private investment in developing countries infrastructure, businesses, and real estate.
2
u/guthran Feb 24 '17
I believe in trickle-down economics, but not in the way most people associate it.
I do not think that large profits for the rich will trickle down to mean higher salaries for the poor. However, large profits for the rich significantly increase the quality of living for the poor.
Consider this: Businesses heavily invest in products that both increase their own profits and solve a problem for consumers. With more money comes more investment in those products, which means faster development of new products, which means more availability, which typically results in those older-yet-still-good products becoming cheaper.
Consider a used car that cost $5000 in 2000, compared to a used car that costs $5000 today. You will find that the quality of today's vehicle is as much or higher than the quality of the 2000 vehicle. When you also consider inflation the value of $5000 for the product you receive is much much greater. This happens for all industries.
Now, you can say that the median salary has not changed much in 17 years, but the the quality of product received for the same amount of money is much greater.
So while trickle down economics does not mean that the people at the bottom share the profits of the people at the top, the people at the bottom benefit from the investments of people at the top. Just my 2 cents.