It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   
That's their own fault. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. Don't live in a place that you can't afford. Personal responsibility is the answer. Bad choices lead to poverty.




posted on May, 21 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
Money in the pockets of the rich does not stay there...


I get your point, but I want to challenge you on this. Most wealth does not trickle down. Lets take a tech startup as that's what I'm most familiar with (though I'm not great on all the terminology). Lets say the first round of funding starts, I think that's called series A? And the company raises $2 million. That will probably hire a team of 5 for a year at a cost of $500,000. The remainder of that $2 million will go towards corporate expenses such as equipment, legal fees, office space, taxes, and so on. Of that $2 million, you're looking at 1/2 that recirculates among the upper tier professional classes (consultants, c level execs, lawyers, etc), 1/4 on equipment that can be liquidated and recovered if the investment goes bad, and only 1/4 of it that trickles down to the labor force.

It's true that the rich are spending money, but most of what they're spending goes to other rich folks.


Why are you just stopping with one or two people in? You don't think the consultants, bankers, and anyone else who is benefiting don't also spend money that trickles down.



posted on May, 21 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Uberdoubter

What you mentioned that money put into the pockets of the rich stays there, is exactly how you stay rich. You don't go blowing cash on extravagances (unless you're in the hundreds of millions range), you don't give a ton to charities (unless it's a tax write off), you don't spread the money around. You invest it, consolidate it, make it work for you so you can spend more time either utilizing that money for a decent lifestyle, or move on to another stream of revenue generation.

Aside from inheritance and the lottery, no one gets rich by accident. Risks are taken, but they are extremely calculated risks. Everything is done with the goal of increasing your wealth and maintaining it.



posted on May, 21 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Why are you just stopping with one or two people in? You don't think the consultants, bankers, and anyone else who is benefiting don't also spend money that trickles down.


Not most of it, no. What they spend on consumer goods trickles down, but anything that goes into savings goes back into accounts that invest in various opportunities where the money mostly just recirculates among the wealthy.



posted on May, 21 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


The remainder of that $2 million will go towards corporate expenses such as equipment, legal fees, office space, taxes, and so on. Of that $2 million, you're looking at 1/2 that recirculates among the upper tier professional classes (consultants, c level execs, lawyers, etc), 1/4 on equipment that can be liquidated and recovered if the investment goes bad, and only 1/4 of it that trickles down to the labor force.

Equipment is made by workers, so a good chunk of that trickles down through payrolls. Legal fees are exhorbitant due to the huge risk of being sued over silly things, a direct consequence of government, and a masssive amount of complex legal paperwork, also a direct consequence of government. Office space must be maintained, so there's more payroll. Taxes are direct payments to government.

The excess is not circulating among CEOs, but it is circulating among politicians... the same ones that keep you blaming the CEOs.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Equipment is made by workers, so a good chunk of that trickles down through payrolls.


It depends on the equipment. At the company I work for, our markups are absolutely ridiculous. I'm not aware of any product we produce with under a 500% markup when we sell it, some products are more than a 5000% markup. Using that experience as my basis, sure some money goes to the workers, but the vast majority of it goes to corporate profits which we've already established don't trickle down. Then the equipment itself acts as an asset that protects some of the investment as it can be resold. If that happens the workers don't see any of it, only the investors recoup their money.

I'm not blaming anyone, if the wealthy didn't invest in the business, it never would have existed in the first place. Only challenging the idea that the money trickles down. It doesn't. When the bottom 50% in the US own less than 1% of the total wealth, that means no wealth is actually going down, it all remains concentrated in the top.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

If you're producing products with that much markup, it is likely that those products are niche (limited customer base) and/or reflect a lot of research. Otherwise, someone would be competing with you to drive prices down. Markup doesn't tell the whole story in manufacturing. There are development costs that are difficult to attach accurately as well as limitations to the economics of scale. I obviously don't know what you produce, but I do know how expensive (and risky) R&D can be. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if I had $50k tied up in my shop between the equipment, tools, and stock inventory... and that's a private setup assembled on a shoestring, not a corporate facility with an actual budget.

Consumer goods can have those costs spread across millions of purchases; niche products can be limited to a thousand potential purchases or less to cover the R&D.

As for trickling down, too many plans being proposed tend to establish a practical decision between a good lifestyle and zero income. While everyone wants that good lifestyle, zero income for others is not what I consider acceptable. A few percent might not sound like a lot, and it isn't, but it beats zero.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We do have competition, how much varies by the product. But there's also a high barrier to entry in the field so there's few competitors. I'm still learning the business side of things but since we make scientific and medical equipment that has to be supported for X years after purchase by law, that's where part of the markup comes in. The rest of it is pure profit motive. Labor represents very little of the value of what we produce, most of the value is in the IP, patents, licensing, and so on and none of that value will trickle down.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnotherPOV
That's their own fault. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. Don't live in a place that you can't afford. Personal responsibility is the answer. Bad choices lead to poverty.


I have no kids to raise.

I am being held hostage by a country that call me a citizen.

How can someone leave a country that does not allow for citizens to leave?

Then along comes the coupon clippers to tell me i should just be more responsible and move somewhere cheaper.

So is it my own fault for being born in a country that keeps me as a civil slave for their own purposes.

Is it my fault that this fubared society has ran up a bill in my honor to the tune of about a hundred grand per slave.

How about you and all those pretending things are great do some research and see that while yes you can do well in the usa you are doing so in debt as a slave to the system that owns your ass and will not just let you go.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TheRedneck

We do have competition, how much varies by the product. But there's also a high barrier to entry in the field so there's few competitors. I'm still learning the business side of things but since we make scientific and medical equipment that has to be supported for X years after purchase by law, that's where part of the markup comes in. The rest of it is pure profit motive. Labor represents very little of the value of what we produce, most of the value is in the IP, patents, licensing, and so on and none of that value will trickle down.


It trickles down. You act as if there is some set amount... the fact you have a job means it is trickling down. You in turn spend money on things which means someone else is employed.... they in turn spend their money on things which means someone else is employed...



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Trickle down theory suggests that a large percentage of wealth (almost all of it actually) trickles down. It does not. Only a small percentage does.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Trickle down theory suggests that a large percentage of wealth (almost all of it actually) trickles down. It does not. Only a small percentage does.

No, that's not what 'trickle down' says. It indicates that some of the wealth trickles down, not all of it, not 'almost all' of it, not even 'a large percentage' of it. What trickles down is payroll... direct payroll, as in your salary, the payroll of the companies that make the equipment you use to make the products, the payroll of the companies that provide corporate services, the payroll of the companies that then provide products and services to them, and so on.

If your products are scientific/medical, then that certainly explains the high markup. Your company is risking quite a lot. A bad piece of equipment could be responsible for a failed scientific experiment, or worse yet, the death of someone. Lawsuits like that can run into tens of millions of dollars, and they have to maintain insurance to ensure that they don't go broke overnight due to one verdict. If that happens, your job disappears.

Now you have a very small, professional clientele who are used to salesmen in three-piece tailored suits. These salesmen work on high commissions because sales are infrequent and they are not going to pay for those three-piece suits unless the job pays more than they cost.

You also have extensive testing to ensure absolute perfection in operation, as well as pretty severe R&D costs to keep pressing the limits of technology, all spread out over a niche market. There's your mark-up.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 23 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Uberdoubter

What you mentioned that money put into the pockets of the rich stays there, is exactly how you stay rich. You don't go blowing cash on extravagances (unless you're in the hundreds of millions range), you don't give a ton to charities (unless it's a tax write off), you don't spread the money around. You invest it, consolidate it, make it work for you so you can spend more time either utilizing that money for a decent lifestyle, or move on to another stream of revenue generation.

Aside from inheritance and the lottery, no one gets rich by accident. Risks are taken, but they are extremely calculated risks. Everything is done with the goal of increasing your wealth and maintaining it.


Exactly. Making it easier for the rich and shameless to stay that way, has limited benefits for the rest of us.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CB328

When was the last time all Americans could afford rent and food?


My late grandmother used to joke, before we moved north, that they had more to live on & not starve or go homeless when she was a kid in the Great Depression than families do today.

She was a sarcastic old broad, but she might not have been joking, either. Sometimes truths were just heavily dipped in the sarc & we didn't realize it.

Thats because they knew how to farm , hunt , trap fish.
Forgot the major one - They built their own homes out of chopped down trees.
Folks today ? Not so much
Comparing totally different times and situations

Today , folks do not concentrate on food and shelter. They have to have a Lexus , high priced phones , tats , etc.
Who has money left for unnecessary things like food and a place to live ?


Also today, there is a crippling amount of government regulation...one cannot cut down some trees on there own property without government interference, one cannot build a house without a licensed contractor and permits, one cannot simply go hunt or fish without a license and strict regulation (seasons, bag limits, etc). The people today cannot be as independent as those generations years ago...

What ?
I can cut down any tree that I feel a need to in my woods.


You must not live in California lol




You seriously have to wonder why anyone would choose to live in California.



gotta convince the wife first



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join