Trickle down or trickle up economics?

[GrimJack]

When are people going to realize that the rich are rich because they make better financial decissions, while the poor make poor decissions. If the poor were to think and manage their money like the rich, they would both come closer to the center.

Instant gratification or lack of sacrifice and lack of financial education are the poors enemy, not the rich. IMO.

Yes! Look at how well they have managed the economy so far. Give them free reign! We need another world-wide depression.

[Inkstain82]

Yes! Look at how well they have managed the economy so far. Give them free reign! We need another world-wide depression.

I honestly don't see how *anyone* could make the "rich make better economic decisions" given the current situation. Some of the stories you read coming out of the Wall Street meltdown are unbelievable.

I *will* agree that the line between poverty and a comfortable lower-middle-class lifestyle is basic decision-making.

[tripods68]

A single data point is 'pointless', the average wage is less than $44k (@$22.00 per hour).

Don't minimize a single data point and say its "pointless" that's just ignorant.

When you add all other sectors in the industry in this country; workers that have less than college education like electricians, constructions workers, joe the "plumbers" the likes, or garbage collectors---that single point of data you think it is pointless represent millions of workers in this country which generate billions of wages that drives this economy.

[GrimJack]

Don't minimize a single data point and say its "pointless" that's just ignorant.

When you add all other sectors in the industry in this country; workers that have less than college education like electricians, constructions workers, joe the "plumbers" the likes, or garbage collectors---that single point of data you think it is pointless represent millions of workers in this country which generate billions of wages that drives this economy.

No! That single data point means that one - yes, one person - in the CA systems makes that wage. That is what the news article states and that is a single data point that refers to only one person and is pointless when talking about the country's economy. I do not understand how all the "Joe the"-s got into the conversation; what point are you making?

[GrimJack]

I honestly don't see how *anyone* could make the "rich make better economic decisions" given the current situation. Some of the stories you read coming out of the Wall Street meltdown are unbelievable.

I *will* agree that the line between poverty and a comfortable lower-middle-class lifestyle is basic decision-making.

I hope you noticed my sarcasto-meter was pegging when I made that comment. I am pro-union and do not believe that the rich are superior beings who should be allowed free reign to control the economy, the market or anything else.

At the very least, I believe the market is a 3-legged beast trying to find a balance between labor, management, and government.

[maat55]

Yes! Look at how well they have managed the economy so far. Give them free reign! We need another world-wide depression.

Yes, those poor union workers are underpaid, so let give them all a raise and live happily ever after.

[KGeary]

Hourly workers are overpaid in the sense that they are paid far more than they would be a perfectly free market.

But then, in a perfectly free market, their wage would continually diminish over time as those richer than them accumulate a progressively better bargaining position over time.

This is such a fallacy.

Wages increase in a free market economy. We've seen this. Why do you think there are 401k matches, employer sponsored health care plans, sign on bonuses, and so on?

As more businesses enter the market, competition increases. This competition benefits low level workers, not CEOs. Companies provide more benefits and pay higher wages to attract lower level workers. This is consistently proven.

Then people like you come along and raise the minimum wage, effectively destroying this free-market routine and causing companies to lay-off workers because instead of the average wage increasing over time as a market effect it increases instantly. Companies aren't prepared for this, can't adapt instantly, and lay off workers to even out the new costs. Thus, instead of having really happy workers making more money, we have a lot of workers who no longer have a job.

Liberalism is an ideology completely based in emotion rather than logic. It has failed time and time again. Every current failing government program is based on liberal ideology.

[KGeary]

A perfectly free market will work as well as a perfect socialist one. You believe if we trust in the free market everyone will get paid and live a life style they deserve. Wrong!

If it was perfectly free you would get very very very rich people who effectively would be the only people controlling your supposedly "free market".

Wealth doesn't control a free market, behavior does.

Eventually it would get so bad (working condidtions, almost zero pay for the bottom workers, a complete disregard for humanity, that their would be a revolt. Either that or it would lead to a fuedal system.

Now the opposite in a world where we become perfect socialists. Everyone gets an equal opportunity and everyone works for the betterment of everyone else. Uh oh the problem here is a good portion of the people don't feel they have to work for anything. The other people have to work extra hard to cover the butts of those who aren't working.

In my opinion what has made this nation great and will continue to make this nation great is the strive for a balance between the two concepts. Do we want competition in all forms of business yes. However we try to balance that out with basic human rights such as protection (armed forces, police, fire depart.), education, basic medical care, etc... The difficult part is what we can agree is a basic human right and how much of it should everyone have to support.

Personally since my wife makes a good living as a nurse and I am happy with my income. I bought a house that I can afford to live in and make the payments easily. I am also able to max out my retirements and keep an emergency savings. I am able to give my daughter things (gymnastics class, swim lessons, dance class) that my parents were not able to afford for me. I am not whining I just understand that sometimes others less fortunate do need help and people to stick up for them. However you seem to be sticking up for the billionare CEO's while I am sticking up for educated people who make very little money. You fight for an extreme while I look for the benefits to both sides.

The free market would provide all this...you don't need a government to do it. I will state again...there's a reason Toyota makes $40,000 cars as well as $12,000 cars.

The government doesn't force them to make cars everyone can afford, their competition does. This is the effect of the free market. The government didn't need to come in and tell Toyota to make $12,000 cars. In the future, they won't have to tell them to make $8,000 cars...companies will always match the needs of society or will face punishment by the market itself, forcing them to make changes or be replaced by someone who will provide for the needs of society.

You have to let go of reliance on government. The market doesn't need a mommy and a daddy; it sorts problems out on its own.

[KGeary]

I honestly don't see how *anyone* could make the "rich make better economic decisions" given the current situation. Some of the stories you read coming out of the Wall Street meltdown are unbelievable.

I *will* agree that the line between poverty and a comfortable lower-middle-class lifestyle is basic decision-making.

The rich didn't cause the market collapse, nor did the banks....the government did. You have to let go of this victim mentality that the poor don't have a chance in hell of being successful or wealthy.

Wealth is a choice, especially over the long term. There is no reason everyone can't be a millionaire by retirement.

Do you know what it takes to be a millionaire by retirement? Investing $300 per month from age 25 to age 65 makes you a millionaire even if your return fails to match the market average by 2%.

Do you know what the average car payment in America is? It's over $350 per month. Then there are cell phone bills, HBO, eating out, having children when you're not financially ready, abusing credit cards, and so on.

$300 per month makes you a millionaire and you're going to tell me that wealth isn't a choice? If you can't do $300 per month you're a complete failure.

[sweeps]

KGeary: I appreciate your go-get-em attitude. I agree that attitude, hard work and responsibility are crucial qualities needed for someone to accumulate wealth. However.....

I would submit that you really have no idea what it's like to be struggling and have the chips stacked against you. Many people "on the other side of the tracks" don't have the opportunity to thrive that you may have had. I'm going to take a guess that you came from a stable household, had access to a quality education, have been free of serious illness and disability, have been blessed with above average intelligence, and have not had to experience a long painful decline in your industry of choice.

Some people face not just one strike against them, but multiple strikes. Sure it's not impossible for these people to become wealthy, but it is improbable -- particularly if left to the brutal consequences of a pure free market philosophy.

[KGeary]

KGeary: I appreciate your go-get-em attitude. I agree that attitude, hard work and responsibility are crucial qualities needed for someone to accumulate wealth. However.....

I would submit that you really have no idea what it's like to be struggling and have the chips stacked against you.

But...however...well...you see...it's not like...

All I hear from people with this argument are excuses.

Many people "on the other side of the tracks" don't have the opportunity to thrive that you may have had.

I've been broke, paycheck to paycheck, $32k in debt, and I don't have a college education. What opportunities have I had that you haven't?

I'm going to take a guess that you came from a stable household, had access to a quality education, have been free of serious illness and disability, have been blessed with above average intelligence, and have not had to experience a long painful decline in your industry of choice.

I left a stable household and started my own life broke and without a college education. I've never been disabled or faced a serious illness, but there's insurance for that. I won't comment on my intelligence and my industry doesn't have particularly high success ratios.

Some people face not just one strike against them, but multiple strikes. Sure it's not impossible for these people to become wealthy, but it is improbable -- particularly if left to the brutal consequences of a pure free market philosophy.

There is nothing brutal about the free market. There is brutality with a market that has been tampered with, as we're seeing now.

Unions are one reason for the decline of many industries, including the auto industry. Unions tamper with the market. Go figure.

The banking industry crashed because the government got involved and tampered with the rules of the industry. Go figure.

The free market is not brutal; those who try to "help the market" cause consequences.

[maat55]

KGeary: I appreciate your go-get-em attitude. I agree that attitude, hard work and responsibility are crucial qualities needed for someone to accumulate wealth. However.....

I would submit that you really have no idea what it's like to be struggling and have the chips stacked against you. Many people "on the other side of the tracks" don't have the opportunity to thrive that you may have had. I'm going to take a guess that you came from a stable household, had access to a quality education, have been free of serious illness and disability, have been blessed with above average intelligence, and have not had to experience a long painful decline in your industry of choice.

Some people face not just one strike against them, but multiple strikes. Sure it's not impossible for these people to become wealthy, but it is improbable -- particularly if left to the brutal consequences of a pure free market philosophy.

Sweeps, I was dirt poor as a child. The only thing that has stopped my progress is poor choices and lack of knowledge. I grew up in a small business and eventually became the owner of my job. There is nothing special about what I do for a living, I earn a good wage from hard work. I say this because anyone can do this.

I probably make less than half what the auto workers make, but will still be worth more than a million by retirement because I chose to make it my priority.

Government help, IMO, only weakens an individuals resolve to achieve. I agree that there needs to be certain regulations to protect everyones chance to succeed, but not subsidizing the poor. Minimum wage and safe working conditions are acceptable.IMO.

[rooskers]

Wealth doesn't control a free market, behavior does.

That is exactly my point on why socialism or your concept of a free market will never work. The behaviour of people will not let it work. Out of all the people who have money and power some will be corrupt. If they become corrupt (insider trading, monopoly, slave labor) the concept of a free market fails.

The rich didn't cause the market collapse, nor did the banks....the government did.

You may be sick of people coming up with excuses well I would second that. I am tired of whiners saying it is all the governments fault. The mess were in was created through a combination of many many many factors (government just one factor). To blame just the government is almost like the family of 10 without an education blaming society on all their troubles.

I will agree I am tired of people with 5 children and another on the way who haven't finished high school complain they can't have large screen TV's. Then they are offered a job at minimum wage and complain they don't make enough. To get votes the politicians say they will raise minimum wage and when that happens and I go to the local burger joint and my burger costs $1.00 more and one of the high school kids is layed off because of costs. This is not the only type of people in the US who are struggling though and some people cannot understand this.

[Snave]

I am a mathematics teacher in Oregon and they require a master's degree. I work in a rural school and as a result make a little over $30,000 a year. Maybe all rural school teachers in Oregon should just realize that the market has told us we are not worth it and either are their children. Instead we should all abandon the children and let them get their education from private schools where the teachers are paid far better. Those children who can't afford private school cannot blame their lack of education on the state but instead should blame themselves for not working hard enough.

I still stick by what I said. YOU are the one that chose your profession (just like my wife who is a teacher). The market does dictate what you are paid and school teachers are paid that amount. You knew what you would earn before you started and still chose to go that route. I am not saying it is not a noble profession, but I am assuming as a mathematics teacher, you crunched a few numbers before you entered the profession.

[sweeps]

We have some stark philosophical differences and we'll just have to disagree, but this comment in particular caught my eye.

The banking industry crashed because the government got involved and tampered with the rules of the industry. Go figure.

Actually the banking industry crashed because it was DE-REGULATED. Banks took on risky investments that they didn't understand and they got burned. Now they're begging the government for help.