Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation doesn't always = causation, but it often does.
Fixed that for you!
Actually, it does very infrequently. For example, I can tell you that stock prices are caused by earnings, risk, and market sentiment. Yet I could easily find you thousands -- if not millions -- of variables which, if regressed against stocks, would show a statistically significant coefficient that would be completely meaningless from a causality standpoint (including say, something as silly as your age, or mine, over time).
This is typically what happens when people are fooled by randomness.
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation =/= causation.
No surprise. You would grasp at that straw, now wouldn’t you.
It’s not just Apple, and it’s not just China. This is the dirty little secret that underpins profit for many companies worldwide.
This is no secret, it is well-known.
If your heart really bleeds (along with that of a couple of others here), I believe you should put your money where your mouth is, and: (i) Not buy the company's products/services; (ii) Not buy the company's stock.
People who do otherwise are simply enablers of a system that they (apparently) vehemently despise. I'd go as far to say, they're being hypocritical.
So I should just not buy the product of or invest in any company anywhere in the world. Smart. Real smart.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here:
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Unions are the reason most workers enjoy the benefits they presently enjoy. I worked for a subsidiary of GM once as a white collar worker. Our benefits were based on those of GM’s blue collar workers. But the company I worked for was sold off piece by piece to non-union companies that paid less and had less benefits. This chart should not surprise anyone, under the circumstances.
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation =/= causation.
Not by itself, but the arguments made to support it are convincing. As this is not a matter of physical science there will never absolute empirical evidence, but as power is removed from workers we see wealth likewise stripped and instead collected at the top in the hands of the fewer and wealthier. That’s all the smoking gun I need — our system is now broken. It’s designed to concentrate wealth, and with the Citizens United case that claims money is speech, power at the top. The agenda is clear.
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation =/= causation.
No surprise. You would grasp at that straw, now wouldn’t you.
Why is that a "straw"? What, instead, if it was a perfectly sensible rebuttal to a nonsensical statement, a strawman as it were on your part?
The very fact that you're unable to rebut tells us all there is to know (also, see Post #21 above).
It’s not just Apple, and it’s not just China. This is the dirty little secret that underpins profit for many companies worldwide.
This is no secret, it is well-known.
If your heart really bleeds (along with that of a couple of others here), I believe you should put your money where your mouth is, and: (i) Not buy the company's products/services; (ii) Not buy the company's stock.
People who do otherwise are simply enablers of a system that they (apparently) vehemently despise. I'd go as far to say, they're being hypocritical.
So I should just not buy the product of or invest in any company anywhere in the world. Smart. Real smart.
It's not illegal to be a hypocrite. As long as one is comfortable living with it.
Speaking for myself, I am not into virtue-signaling complaining about the injustices of Apple and the world whilst partaking of that very thing I am complaining about..
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here:
I'll say again: correlation =/= causation. You're being fooled by randomness. And, before you post something, you should understand what it means: what is the definition of "middle class" here?
And please let's not reference Robert Reich? There's too much baggage there over which to get into an argument...
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation =/= causation.
Not by itself, but the arguments made to support it are convincing. As this is not a matter of physical science there will never absolute empirical evidence, but as power is removed from workers we see wealth likewise stripped and instead collected at the top in the hands of the fewer and wealthier. That’s all the smoking gun I need — our system is now broken. It’s designed to concentrate wealth, and with the Citizens United case that claims money is speech, power at the top. The agenda is clear.
So you're saying Apple has an "agenda"? What exactly is that agenda?
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here: ...
Never been a fan of Robert Reich, per se, but your chart depicts a depressing set of circumstances.
One good start would be to change the laws that place fiduciary responsibility to shareholders above every other meaningful consideration, such as employees, local communities, and other highly dependent stakeholders. In other words, things that Wall Street traders don’t give a crap about.
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation =/= causation.
No surprise. You would grasp at that straw, now wouldn’t you.
Why is that a "straw"? What, instead, if it was a perfectly sensible rebuttal to a nonsensical statement, a strawman as it were on your part?
The very fact that you're unable to rebut tells us all there is to know (also, see Post #21 above).
It’s at least as much of a rebuttal as your “Correlation =/= causation” statement, which you’ve already backed away from with another poster. Not that it matters, since I’m not posting here to convince you (an unlikely possibility), but to point out to others that there’s another perfectly valid viewpoint than yours out there. Which I’ve now done, so this conversation is at an end.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here: ...
Never been a fan of Robert Reich, per se, but your chart depicts a depressing set of circumstances.
One good start would be to change the laws that place fiduciary responsibility to shareholders above every other meaningful consideration, such as employees, local communities, and other highly dependent stakeholders. In other words, things that Wall Street traders don’t give a crap about.
That chart is bogus, at worst, and misleading at best. Note the footnote says "Middle class share of aggregate income is from the US Census Bureau....".
It is incumbent upon posters to tell us exactly what the definition of such things is (if asked), otherwise intellectual honesty demands they retract the post (which, sadly, I am not expecting them to do). Lots of fake news floating around.
CloudTalkin said: The law ... doesn't introduce inefficiencies; it introduces potentially higher production costs for the companies. [...]
Wha?!! How are those two statements not mutually exclusive?
The amount paid for wages has no impact on the (lack of) efficiency of the processes in a business. The work is clearly available or the labour would not be employed in the first place.
And if the demand for labour is so high, why does the price not rise in response? If the price were to rise to an unsustainable point, that's the impetus for improving efficiency so that less labour input is required - as is shown by a number of European countries where the minimum wage is much higher than, say, the USA.
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation doesn't always = causation, but it often does.
Fixed that for you!
Actually, it does very infrequently. For example, I can tell you that stock prices are caused by earnings, risk, and market sentiment. Yet I could easily find you thousands -- if not millions -- of variables which, if regressed against stocks, would show a statistically significant coefficient that would be completely meaningless from a causality standpoint (including say, something as silly as your age, or mine, over time).
This is typically what happens when people are fooled by randomness - or overly simplistic sayings or beliefs.
Fixed that for you - again.... On he other hand, it's never been proven that jumping out of an airplane without a parachute causes death. Perhaps its just highly correlated.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here:
I'll say again: correlation =/= causation. You're being fooled by randomness. And, before you post something, you should understand what it means: what is the definition of "middle class" here?
And please let's not reference Robert Reich? There's too much baggage there over which to get into an argument...
Ahh! So you support a foolish argument with a foolish, overly simplistic, saying... I guess you get points for consistency.
Edit: I daresay you could find a corresponding chart that shows the money flowing out of the hands of the lower and middle class and into the hands of the upper class during this period....
Correlation =/= causation.
Not by itself, but the arguments made to support it are convincing. As this is not a matter of physical science there will never absolute empirical evidence, but as power is removed from workers we see wealth likewise stripped and instead collected at the top in the hands of the fewer and wealthier. That’s all the smoking gun I need — our system is now broken. It’s designed to concentrate wealth, and with the Citizens United case that claims money is speech, power at the top. The agenda is clear.
So you're saying Apple has an "agenda"? What exactly is that agenda?
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here: ...
Never been a fan of Robert Reich, per se, but your chart depicts a depressing set of circumstances.
One good start would be to change the laws that place fiduciary responsibility to shareholders above every other meaningful consideration, such as employees, local communities, and other highly dependent stakeholders. In other words, things that Wall Street traders don’t give a crap about.
That chart is bogus, at worst, and misleading at best. Note the footnote says "Middle class share of aggregate income is from the US Census Bureau....".
It is incumbent upon posters to tell us exactly what the definition of such things is (if asked), otherwise intellectual honesty demands they retract the post (which, sadly, I am not expecting them to do). Lots of fake news floating around.
LOL...So in addition to using overly simplistic, sayings to support your argument, you ignore statistics that refute your argument. That must be a cozy little world you live in.
Comments
This is typically what happens when people are fooled by randomness.
Does the report give examples? These days these accusations have been abusively used by social activists.
So I should just not buy the product of or invest in any company anywhere in the world. Smart. Real smart.
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here:
https://youtu.be/UwwymqpS45c
We could and did! See above.
Not by itself, but the arguments made to support it are convincing. As this is not a matter of physical science there will never absolute empirical evidence, but as power is removed from workers we see wealth likewise stripped and instead collected at the top in the hands of the fewer and wealthier. That’s all the smoking gun I need — our system is now broken. It’s designed to concentrate wealth, and with the Citizens United case that claims money is speech, power at the top. The agenda is clear.
The very fact that you're unable to rebut tells us all there is to know (also, see Post #21 above).
It's not illegal to be a hypocrite. As long as one is comfortable living with it.
Speaking for myself, I am not into virtue-signaling complaining about the injustices of Apple and the world whilst partaking of that very thing I am complaining about..
I'll say again: correlation =/= causation. You're being fooled by randomness. And, before you post something, you should understand what it means: what is the definition of "middle class" here?
And please let's not reference Robert Reich? There's too much baggage there over which to get into an argument...
So you're saying Apple has an "agenda"? What exactly is that agenda?
Never been a fan of Robert Reich, per se, but your chart depicts a depressing set of circumstances.
One good start would be to change the laws that place fiduciary responsibility to shareholders above every other meaningful consideration, such as employees, local communities, and other highly dependent stakeholders. In other words, things that Wall Street traders don’t give a crap about.
The only slight problem? The US Census Bureau has no definition of what constitutes the "middle class". Here's the cut and paste:
It is incumbent upon posters to tell us exactly what the definition of such things is (if asked), otherwise intellectual honesty demands they retract the post (which, sadly, I am not expecting them to do). Lots of fake news floating around.
I backed away from nothing I posted.
I am sorry I gave you that impression.
And if the demand for labour is so high, why does the price not rise in response? If the price were to rise to an unsustainable point, that's the impetus for improving efficiency so that less labour input is required - as is shown by a number of European countries where the minimum wage is much higher than, say, the USA.
On he other hand, it's never been proven that jumping out of an airplane without a parachute causes death. Perhaps its just highly correlated.