d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Question About Trump's 2017 Tax
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Feb 2 2021 11:21pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ 3 Feb 2021 11:58)
Really what's it called? Last I heard they passed a watered down version of a bill authored by Republicans in the 80's.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. as for the bold, that simply isn't true. the media said as much and so did the government at the time. and we know that questioning either the media or the government from 2009-2016 is an anti-democracy anti-freedom pro-national-socialist stance, because plenty of people on this very subforum and to a larger extent in America have said so, especially over the last four years.
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Feb 2 2021 11:26pm
Quote (oRAnGeInAbOx @ Feb 2 2021 09:17pm)
those making <75k are dirt poor? what is the median or average us citizen's salary? Here in MD its 80k and im pretty sure its only worse in others or about the same. so the dirt poor is nearly everyone. but anyway im really only upset that red vs blue is just theater. and even more upset that i didnt buy more gme @ $15. couldve made way more but i was afraid and ignorant.


United States/Population/Median Income
31,133 USD (2019)
way over valuing the life Americans lead
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Feb 2 2021 11:30pm
Quote (theCrossbones @ 2 Feb 2021 21:26)
United States/Population/Median Income
31,133 USD (2019)
way over valuing the life Americans lead


Source? Census.gov disagrees.

Quote
Median household income was $68,703 in 2019, an increase of 6.8 percent from the 2018 median of $64,324 (Figure 1 and Table A-1).


https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html

Maybe go past the google search screen and find a valid source? :)

Edit: For per-worker median earnings:

Quote
The 2019 real median earnings of men ($57,456) and women ($47,299) who worked full-time, year-round increased by 2.1 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively (Figure 4 and Table A-6). The 2019 female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.823, not statistically different from the 2018 ratio (Figure 5).


This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 2 2021 11:36pm
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Feb 2 2021 11:44pm
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 2 2021 09:30pm)
Source? Census.gov disagrees.



https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html

Maybe go past the google search screen and find a valid source? :)

Edit: For per-worker median earnings:


meh low effort obv.. 57-47k is not much better
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 2 2021 11:49pm
Quote (theCrossbones @ Feb 2 2021 11:26pm)
United States/Population/Median Income
31,133 USD (2019)
way over valuing the life Americans lead


I think you are mixing up household income and individual worker income
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Feb 2 2021 11:50pm
Quote (theCrossbones @ 2 Feb 2021 21:44)
meh low effort obv.. 57-47k is not much better


For most "meaningful" numbers, household median is the important number. The "Real Number" discounts part time workers and such. The Household median takes into account the household. So if you have one part time worker and one full time worker, that's covered. Granted, some households are just 1 person, but yeah.

Just for some actual math: Minimum wage pay from Amazon is $15/hour. So if you have a couple who work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, the income is 40*15*50=$30,000*2=$60,000/year.

So if the number you'd quoted had been the actual median income for a full time worker, that'd be saying that Amazon is literally paying the median pay for their lowest wage jobs.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2021 12:08am
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 2 2021 11:50pm)
For most "meaningful" numbers, household median is the important number. The "Real Number" discounts part time workers and such. The Household median takes into account the household. So if you have one part time worker and one full time worker, that's covered. Granted, some households are just 1 person, but yeah.

Just for some actual math: Minimum wage pay from Amazon is $15/hour. So if you have a couple who work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, the income is 40*15*50=$30,000*2=$60,000/year.

So if the number you'd quoted had been the actual median income for a full time worker, that'd be saying that Amazon is literally paying the median pay for their lowest wage jobs.


Quite sad. Based on our productivity the lowest wage should be around $20 an hour. We really do let the rich take too much from us. Soon it will be time to feast, and they will be frightened, for there are so few of them, and so many of us, there won't be enough to go around.
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Feb 3 2021 12:17am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 2 Feb 2021 22:08)
Quite sad. Based on our productivity the lowest wage should be around $20 an hour. We really do let the rich take too much from us. Soon it will be time to feast, and they will be frightened, for there are so few of them, and so many of us, there won't be enough to go around.


I would potentially agree if that's how the economics of a business worked. Smaller businesses can't afford it. If you employ 20 workers and per worker post-overhead less wages, you're making $20/profit per hour, then maybe you could pay $15/hour average. The remaining $5/hour*20 workers isn't just paying you some magic $100/hour. It's also going to cover business upgrades and improvements as well as providing a rainy day fund. Now expand that to something the size of amazon. If you're hiring a million workers, and your average pay per worker is $19.75/hour but profit per worker is $20/hour, you're only making $0.25/worker per hour. It's not necessarily that you're "underpaying" them. If you raised their average pay by just $1, you'd go bankrupt. But, because you've taken your size of business to such an extreme, even with only a $0.25/worker profit, you're gaining $250,000 per hour profit. So, you reinvest a bunch into the business and pay yourself what, the equivalent of $250K/year? You come off looking like the bad guy because you made so much, yet you're paying more than the smaller business, making a much slimmer profit margin, just have a better process.

Or at least, that's the gist of it.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 3 2021 12:18am
Member
Posts: 16,257
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
Feb 3 2021 12:52am
Quote (inkanddagger @ Feb 3 2021 05:18pm)
You middle classes hear “tax the rich” and assume they’re taking about you and not my class, which is far out of your reach. It’s quite pathetic, really.


Assuming is pathetic
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2021 01:25am
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 3 2021 12:17am)
I would potentially agree if that's how the economics of a business worked. Smaller businesses can't afford it. If you employ 20 workers and per worker post-overhead less wages, you're making $20/profit per hour, then maybe you could pay $15/hour average. The remaining $5/hour*20 workers isn't just paying you some magic $100/hour. It's also going to cover business upgrades and improvements as well as providing a rainy day fund. Now expand that to something the size of amazon. If you're hiring a million workers, and your average pay per worker is $19.75/hour but profit per worker is $20/hour, you're only making $0.25/worker per hour. It's not necessarily that you're "underpaying" them. If you raised their average pay by just $1, you'd go bankrupt. But, because you've taken your size of business to such an extreme, even with only a $0.25/worker profit, you're gaining $250,000 per hour profit. So, you reinvest a bunch into the business and pay yourself what, the equivalent of $250K/year? You come off looking like the bad guy because you made so much, yet you're paying more than the smaller business, making a much slimmer profit margin, just have a better process.

Or at least, that's the gist of it.


So the first thing is that workers are less than 20% of the business cost even in high-labor businesses like fast food. So the whole "pay them $0.25 more an hour would bankrupt you" is not really how these things would go. Amazon for example made 11.59 billion profit in 2019 and has about 800k workers. That means they could afford to pay every worker an addition $7 an hour and still break even, assuming all workers are full time. Walmart could afford an additional ~$60,000 a year per worker. These are just examples to show that even in worker-heavy businesses the companies are not operating on razor thin margins as far as employee pay is concerned. Now consider that labor cost is < 20% of the total cost of these businesses, and you see that they could make up the cost by a less than 20% increase in prices.

The second thing is that increasing minimum wage increases the income of the lowest class of people, who have the greatest propensity to spend. When a Walmart worker gets a raise, most of that raise is spent buying things at Walmart. Increasing pay for the group that is most likely to spend drives demand, which allows more profit from those same companies. So even though they could raise prices to compensate, they don't actually have to because the economy as a whole is doing more business which drives prices down and profits up.

The third thing is that companies already operate with the fewest number of people they can. They don't make a habit of hiring extra people out of the goodness of their hearts, and they don't pay more than they have to. So as long as the person is making you more money than they cost, they will be retained, and in order for that to happen even at some place like McDonalds you would need to raise the minimum wage to probably $30 or more.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 3 2021 01:27am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll