Top Down vs. Bottom up economics

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
top down doesnt work.

the data shows that the wealthy get wealthier, the poorer get poorer and the middle class treads water.

the middle class won't be waiting for checks every month like some suggest. The middle class is simply looking to loosen up its own wallets (much like the banks are looking to loosen up its own credit lines) in order to spend.

There are no middle class "handouts."

Have any evidence to suggest that poor get poorer?

Don't the 'poor' today have cell phones, big screen TVs, multiple cars, many of them own homes etc etc.

If the poor were getting poorer we would not be seeing that. We would be seeing people living in card board shacks across our country.

The only way you can say they are getting poorer is to compare them to the wealthy, and that is not a fair comparison.

Compare to Bill Gates I am poor as hell. Despite this I live a very nice lifestyle and have lots of nice things.

I think your idea of how poor people live is based on watching MTV... talk about out of touch with reality. Most poor people probably have negative wealth- they're in debt. And the few who actually have "big screen tvs and multiple cars" are in even greater debt. That's not well off, it's an illusion of being well off that is even more harmful to our society.

QFT!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: OrByte
top down doesnt work.

the data shows that the wealthy get wealthier, the poorer get poorer and the middle class treads water.

the middle class won't be waiting for checks every month like some suggest. The middle class is simply looking to loosen up its own wallets (much like the banks are looking to loosen up its own credit lines) in order to spend.

There are no middle class "handouts."

name a country where bottom UP works... I can name a country where top DOWN works -- the USA. Yea, we got problems, but compared to other country's with bottom up, the USA is paradise - most people forget that.

Would you rather live in a top down economy where the poor lives better than 80% of the world population or in a bottom up economy where the poor is only concern about the "next meal"? In the USA, even if you are "poor" you don't worry about starving to death.

most western democracies generally favor a bottom up approach, as did the united states until roughly when Reagan came into office.

Actually all western democracies still practice bottom up. Any country with progressive taxation is still fundamentally practicing 'bottom up'.

So yeah, it works.

the american tax scheme is regressive, thanks to property taxes, sales taxes, and taxes like SS and medicare.

if you include all taxes paid, its the middle class that pays the highest effective tax rates, since they are typically fulling hit by medicare and SS, have the highest portion of their income dedicated to real estate, and have they highest portion of their income spent on taxed goods.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
-snip

hey there's that sig I was looking for!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bottom up can't work.

You can't create and maintain a middle class by giving them hand outs forever. Look at the 'great society' we have had trillions of dollars in wealth transfers from the top to the bottom and yet the poverty line has barely moved in 30+ years.

i think because of the definition of 'poverty' it can't be eliminated.



across the board is the best way to do it, and the best way to do that is education.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

The minimum wage in this country is not a living wage.

a) who cares what the legal minimum is when practically no one is on it?
b) the vast majority of those working minimum wage are high school students living under mom and dad's roof
c) the vast majority of people near minimum wage move up from that in a short period of time


there are better ways to address the ~6% of minimum wage workers who are full time and single parents than an across the board wage hike.

 

[ayabe]

60% or more of our economy is directly related to consumer spending, who are the consumers? Middle and lower class Americans.

They need to spend money or everything else collapses, if they don't have the money to spend we all suffer.

 

[Juddog]

To clarify, when I mentioned bottom up, it is mainly aimed at the middle 85 % income bracket of Americans. The bottom 10 % usually don't pay much in taxes and don't contribute much to the general consumer spending of the country. The top down applies chiefly to the top 5 % income bracket.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bottom up can't work.

You can't create and maintain a middle class by giving them hand outs forever. Look at the 'great society' we have had trillions of dollars in wealth transfers from the top to the bottom and yet the poverty line has barely moved in 30+ years.

i think because of the definition of 'poverty' it can't be eliminated.



across the board is the best way to do it, and the best way to do that is education.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

The minimum wage in this country is not a living wage.

a) who cares what the legal minimum is when practically no one is on it?
$6.55, and there are plenty of people on it.

b) the vast majority of those working within the dollar above minimum wage are high school students living under mom and dad's roof

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers
16-24 years old 25+ Total
Men 35.2% 33.6% 34.4%
Women 64.8% 66.4% 65.6%
White 83.6% 79.5% 81.7%
Black 11.1% 11.8% 11.4%
Asian 1.7% 5.4% 3.4%
Married 4.8% 42.5% 22.5%

Wage and Income Characteristics of Minimum Wage Earners
Part Time 67.0% 55.6% 61.7%
Full Time 33.0% 44.4% 38.3%
Avg. Family Income $64,273 $33,606 $49,885
At or Below the Poverty Line 16.9% 22.8% 19.5%
Family Income > 200% of Poverty Line 64.7% 44.8% 56.1%

Education Levels of Minimum Wage Workers
Less Than High School 36.3% 22.0% 29.8%
High School Graduate 20.9% 38.5% 29.1%
Some College 35.6% 20.5% 28.5%
Associates Degree 3.4% 8.5% 5.8%
Bachelors Degree or Higher 3.4% 10.6% 6.8%


c) the vast majority of people near minimum wage move up from that in a short period of time

Some do, some don't. Either way, they aren't making much more. Nowhere near the rising costs.

The table isn't formatted correctly, but if you look closely it's rather easy to understand.

 

[Genx87]

A combination of both works great imo.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the american tax scheme is regressive, thanks to property taxes, sales taxes, and taxes like SS and medicare.

if you include all taxes paid, its the middle class that pays the highest effective tax rates, since they are typically fulling hit by medicare and SS, have the highest portion of their income dedicated to real estate, and have they highest portion of their income spent on taxed goods.

You pretend like you don't get that SS/Medicare money back (well, todays 30 year olds might not, but thats another story).

I have no idea why that's considered a 'tax'.

 

[Acanthus]

I love the "our poor arent as poor" argument.

Comparatively the poor are poor in the US.

Bottom up with a focus on education and opportunity is the way to go, not a welfare state.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: eleison
Go to a third world -- thats poor.. Here the poor have ipods, flat screen tv's, cars and enough food to have obesity as one of the bane of being poor.

The only reasons why really poor people have those kinds of things is either because they took a really long time to save up for it, they were being given credit that banks should never have given them, or they are stealing and selling drugs. None of the above has anything to do with this topic.

eleison, I think your view of who is "poor" is a bit warped and condescending. I don't think that describes what I mean but it'll do.

xavier makes a really good point here. As I've mentioned before, you can't make the comparisons to other countries. Thinking that way IMO does not work.

I use to be on "government cheeze" growing up... so unless the definition of "being poor" has changed, I feel qualified to say that my view isn't too warped. Yes, I agree there are exceptions.

I guess from my prospective bottom up economics doesn't make sense. Giving incentives to be middle class doesn't make people strive. It's like China. At one point in time, it use to be looked down upon to be rich. Because of this, actual poverty was high. Now, times have changed, its something that every Chinese want to be. Life for all Chinese have gotten better because society is less stagnant and people strive to become wealthy.

Giving money (a limited resource) to people who lower middle class people, will not help society. Giving money (loans, and what not) to help people (eg., business owners who want to expand, etc.) who will create jobs and serve as an incentive for other people, will help society. Most of these people however, are a little bit more well off.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

The minimum wage in this country is not a living wage.

a) who cares what the legal minimum is when practically no one is on it?
$6.55, and there are plenty of people on it.

b) the vast majority of those working within the dollar above minimum wage are high school students living under mom and dad's roof

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers
16-24 years old 25+ Total
Men 35.2% 33.6% 34.4%
Women 64.8% 66.4% 65.6%
White 83.6% 79.5% 81.7%
Black 11.1% 11.8% 11.4%
Asian 1.7% 5.4% 3.4%
Married 4.8% 42.5% 22.5%

Wage and Income Characteristics of Minimum Wage Earners
Part Time 67.0% 55.6% 61.7%
Full Time 33.0% 44.4% 38.3%
Avg. Family Income $64,273 $33,606 $49,885
At or Below the Poverty Line 16.9% 22.8% 19.5%
Family Income > 200% of Poverty Line 64.7% 44.8% 56.1%

Education Levels of Minimum Wage Workers
Less Than High School 36.3% 22.0% 29.8%
High School Graduate 20.9% 38.5% 29.1%
Some College 35.6% 20.5% 28.5%
Associates Degree 3.4% 8.5% 5.8%
Bachelors Degree or Higher 3.4% 10.6% 6.8%


c) the vast majority of people near minimum wage move up from that in a short period of time

Some do, some don't. Either way, they aren't making much more. Nowhere near the rising costs.

The table isn't formatted correctly, but if you look closely it's rather easy to understand.

where is your table from? here, i guess

as that page explains:

53 percent of those earning $5.15 or less per hour are between the ages of 16 and 24

so it's young workers

Using another measure of earnings that includes tips, 1.3 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less per hour, or 1.1 percent of the total working population.

it's a small portion of workers

of that small portion of workers, 6.1% are "Single Parents Working Full Time, 25 yrs and older." that works out to ~176,700 (before you claim i can't do math, i'm using numbers that i didn't post here that includes tipped workers). not a huge number in the grand scheme of things. and the question to ask is what portion of them are stuck at minimum wage and are not moving up?


more info

 

[TheSlamma]

With the way Americans spend money,, Bottom up works great, the reason the rich are rich is because they don't spend money like the poor/middle do.

Seriously, try to make your mond understand the concept of "Layaway" this is proof that NON-RICH can't hold onto money for shit.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: eleison
Go to a third world -- thats poor.. Here the poor have ipods, flat screen tv's, cars and enough food to have obesity as one of the bane of being poor.

The only reasons why really poor people have those kinds of things is either because they took a really long time to save up for it, they were being given credit that banks should never have given them, or they are stealing and selling drugs. None of the above has anything to do with this topic.

eleison, I think your view of who is "poor" is a bit warped and condescending. I don't think that describes what I mean but it'll do.

xavier makes a really good point here. As I've mentioned before, you can't make the comparisons to other countries. Thinking that way IMO does not work.

I use to be on "government cheeze" growing up... so unless the definition of "being poor" has changed, I feel qualified to say that my view isn't too warped. Yes, I agree there are exceptions.

I guess from my prospective bottom up economics doesn't make sense. Giving incentives to be middle class doesn't make people strive. It's like China. At one point in time, it use to be looked down upon to be rich. Because of this, actual poverty was high. Now, times have changed, its something that every Chinese want to be. Life for all Chinese have gotten better because society is less stagnant and people strive to become wealthy.

Giving money (a limited resource) to people who lower middle class people, will not help society. Giving money (loans, and what not) to help people (eg., business owners who want to expand, etc.) who will create jobs and serve as an incentive for other people, will help society. Most of these people however, are a little bit more well off.

Except most of the jobs they create today are either outsourced to other countries or require such high qualifications that the middle-lower and lower class are not given the opportunities to rise up. This revolves heavily around our education problems.

The thing is that this country is facing lots of problems involving wages, outsourcing, education, etc. Until we fix that shit first, we do not have the opportunity for Top bottom to even stand a chance at being successful. We currently need bottom up. Once we fix those problems, then we can afford to discuss more Top bottom approaches.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Except most of the jobs they create today are either outsourced to other countries or require such high qualifications that the middle-lower and lower class are not given the opportunities to rise up. This revolves heavily around our education problems.

The thing is that this country is facing lots of problems involving wages, outsourcing, education, etc. Until we fix that shit first, we do not have the opportunity for Top bottom to even stand a chance at being successful. We currently need bottom up. Once we fix those problems, then we can afford to discuss more Top bottom approaches.

offshored, damnit!

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
*poof*

where is your table from? here, i guess

as that page explains:

53 percent of those earning $5.15 or less per hour are between the ages of 16 and 24

so it's young workers

Using another measure of earnings that includes tips, 1.3 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less per hour, or 1.1 percent of the total working population.

it's a small portion of workers

of that small portion of workers, 6.1% are "Single Parents Working Full Time, 25 yrs and older." that works out to ~176,700. not a huge number in the grand scheme of things. and the question to ask is what portion of them are stuck at minimum wage and are not moving up?


more info

There was more information on that page, just wanted to put the numbers out there. I had another chart with a different subject on minimum wage but I lost it while editing it and it was very large, so gave up. I'll try again later.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
With the way Americans spend money,, Bottom up works great, the reason the rich are rich is because they don't spend money like the poor/middle do.

Seriously, try to make your mond understand the concept of "Layaway" this is proof that NON-RICH can't hold onto money for shit.

But yet, bottom up means we keep on giving this "free money" to the "NON-RICH" who, as you stated, can't hold onto "money for shit." Doesn't make sense to me.

Its like welfare.. there are families that keep on being on welfare.... generation after generation. Popping out babies and what not.. thats just not right.

 

[Vic]

Neither. Economies have to work both ways. It's a broken economy that only flows in one direction.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the american tax scheme is regressive, thanks to property taxes, sales taxes, and taxes like SS and medicare.

if you include all taxes paid, its the middle class that pays the highest effective tax rates, since they are typically fulling hit by medicare and SS, have the highest portion of their income dedicated to real estate, and have they highest portion of their income spent on taxed goods.

You pretend like you don't get that SS/Medicare money back (well, todays 30 year olds might not, but thats another story).

I have no idea why that's considered a 'tax'.

i 'get back' the money on spend on courts, roads, cops, etc too, perhaps we should stop counting those as taxes as well?

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: ayabe
60% or more of our economy is directly related to consumer spending, who are the consumers? Middle and lower class Americans.

They need to spend money or everything else collapses, if they don't have the money to spend we all suffer.

Can we ever consider a society where we don't need countless consumer zombies buying iphones and other worthless bullshit at an ever increasing rate, just to keep the entire thing from collapsing in on itself?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
With the way Americans spend money,, Bottom up works great, the reason the rich are rich is because they don't spend money like the poor/middle do.

Seriously, try to make your mond understand the concept of "Layaway" this is proof that NON-RICH can't hold onto money for shit.

But yet, bottom up means we keep on giving this "free money" to the "NON-RICH" who, as you stated, can't hold onto "money for shit." Doesn't make sense to me.

Its like welfare.. there are families that keep on being on welfare.... generation after generation. Popping out babies and what not.. thats just not right.

that's the point, people getting money and spending it.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the american tax scheme is regressive, thanks to property taxes, sales taxes, and taxes like SS and medicare.

if you include all taxes paid, its the middle class that pays the highest effective tax rates, since they are typically fulling hit by medicare and SS, have the highest portion of their income dedicated to real estate, and have they highest portion of their income spent on taxed goods.

You pretend like you don't get that SS/Medicare money back (well, todays 30 year olds might not, but thats another story).

I have no idea why that's considered a 'tax'.

i 'get back' the money on spend on courts, roads, cops, etc too, perhaps we should stop counting those as taxes as well?

I didn't realize that the assets of the courts, roads, cops, etc, were in your name.

Is there a miketheidiot mile of highway you own somewhere?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: winnar111

You pretend like you don't get that SS/Medicare money back (well, todays 30 year olds might not, but thats another story).

I have no idea why that's considered a 'tax'.

the average american loses a boat load of money in the SS system over their lifetime due to the piss-poor rates paid out by SS, even in comparison to CDs. that amount is a tax. and it affects people with lower incomes worse than it affects people with higher incomes who can save despite the government taking 12.4% of what their employer pays them in order to give them sh!t on a stick if they happen to live long enough.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the american tax scheme is regressive, thanks to property taxes, sales taxes, and taxes like SS and medicare.

if you include all taxes paid, its the middle class that pays the highest effective tax rates, since they are typically fulling hit by medicare and SS, have the highest portion of their income dedicated to real estate, and have they highest portion of their income spent on taxed goods.

You pretend like you don't get that SS/Medicare money back (well, todays 30 year olds might not, but thats another story).

I have no idea why that's considered a 'tax'.

i 'get back' the money on spend on courts, roads, cops, etc too, perhaps we should stop counting those as taxes as well?

I didn't realize that the assets of the courts, roads, cops, etc, were in your name.

Is there a miketheidiot mile of highway you own somewhere?

I smirked.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bottom up can't work.

You can't create and maintain a middle class by giving them hand outs forever. Look at the 'great society' we have had trillions of dollars in wealth transfers from the top to the bottom and yet the poverty line has barely moved in 30+ years.

The only way to help those at the bottom is to create more wealth for everyone. More wealth = more jobs which means more poor people working and supporting themselves as opposed to waiting for a government check each month.

So you equate welfare with the middle class having more of their own hard earned money in their pockets to spend?? Does "CRANK" do a good job of describing you?