You need it explained why helping vulnerable and poor groups instead of giving a bonus to your already well payed employees is considered philanthropic? I really don't see what you're driving at here.
Let the market decide. Paying your employees better would be "trickle down economics" in actual action. If those employees decide to use it for philanthropy then the "trickle down" continues.
Except "trickle down" hasn't happened, isn't happening, and won't happen.
There’s no such thing as “trickle down economics”, the phrase “trickle down” was a joke created by a comedian named Will Rogers. So if you’re waiting for a satirical critique of politics to start shaping the economy, then I don’t know what to tell you.
What growth does do is increase competition for labor, so if your economic life plan resolves around earning income from labour, then you benefit from growth. You can see the effect our most recent growth trend has had in the fact that the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since the 60s [0], wage growth is double CPI [1], and workforce participation is starting to creep back up after a rather long downward trend [2].
I think giving me a charitable interpretation would be a good start. The origin of the phrase is lost in modern day culture and has a well understood meaning, and you denying me that makes it clear what kind of engagement you are looking for: one in which you feel justified and correct.
I'll give it to you: You're right! Good facts!
Moving on now...
I don't care if my neighbors can get one decent job or more-than-one-shitty job (your [0] and [2]) nor do I care that for X years we had growth in wages (your [1]) when the previous N*X years (for large N) that "real growth in wages" was 0. I would love to sell you stock that will grow at 0% for 30 years and only the last 5 have 2% over inflation. I don't want that toxic shit in my portfolio.
What I care about is the mentality that is justifying making "the market" be one or a handful of people, who happen to own a massive amount of wealth. It's no longer a free market. They are the market. Its self delusional to think someone shouting "I am the State!" has a democratic government, just as someone shouting "I am the market!" is a free and open capitalist market.
Basically, I can't believe my free-market loving friends are ok with its own dismantlement by the concentration of wealth by the ultra wealthy. And I am trying to get through to them.
Give the money to the employees. Who cares if they're already overpaid, because if they are then they'll also make philanthropic donations.
I think the charitable interpretation is that you (like many others) believe there is a group of free market economists that promote this idea of “trickle down economics”. This idea has even less merit than a strawman, since it’s literally a reference to a satire.
> I would love to sell you stock that will grow at 0% for 30 years
Real wage growth (inflation adjusted) has grown about 14% over the past 30 years (which included a financial crisis), so your assessment of the situation is quite unfactual. Those number are fantastic for a highly developed nation, especially when combined with such astonishingly low unemployment.
> What I care about is the mentality that is justifying making "the market" be one or a handful of people, who happen to own a massive amount of wealth.
Having more wealthy people doesn’t mean that everybody else has less. The growth in wealth isn’t taken away from others, it’s generated through economic growth. “The market” is in an absolutely fantastic state. If you want to market your labor, there is abundant opportunity to do so, and it’s worth more and more every year. If you want to generate your own wealth, go ahead, there is a huge amount of cheap capital available (that’s what all those wealthy people did, most of them at times in the past when capital wasn’t as available).
If you want people to “give” you money (as you put it), I don’t know... try Venezuela? The only thing that determines the value of anything is supply and demand. The only alternative system ever (disastrously) trialed was central planning. If you have a better system than supply and demand to propose, then you might have a Nobel prize on your hands.
> Real wage growth (inflation adjusted) has grown about 14% over the past 30 years
> your assessment of the situation is quite unfactual
This, for example, is entirely uncalled for. Ignoring the personal slander, since you're one for citations, and don't even provide one for your own quote here, it makes me suspicious so I went and pulled a chart for you on Wikipedia [0] based on the Department of Labor (using the same CPI that you used in your original reply to me) to show that, no, I do have a factual basis. And trying to claim I am irrational or unfactual is a great way to try to make me feel like shit. But I don't (which is not an invitation to keep trying).
> Having more wealthy people doesn’t mean that everybody else has less. The growth in wealth isn’t taken away from others, it’s generated through economic growth.
This is clear you're strawmanning me. And missed my entire point. The sheer amount of wealth, I have no problem with. But the sheer amount of wealth and power to dictate entire markets and, more alarmingly, remove segments of the population from having power in the free market is problematic for me, a free-market guy. Individuals should not have the market power to dictate what the market is. A free market should not have people powerless in that market. Which is exactly what is happening when people have to work multiple shit jobs and rely on social welfare to maintain a basic standard of living.
> If you want people to “give” you money (as you put it), I don’t know... try Venezuela?
This is such an obvious troll and a clear demonstration of your misunderstanding of my point and clear lack of caring on your part to understand, that it doesn't matter how logical and fact based of an argument I make, you're here to poke fun of a caricature of myself you have concocted for yourself. I'm calling this out as an opportunity for you to reflect.
30 years ago is pretty much the lowest point on that graph. Real wage growth shrank between the 70s and 90s, but it has most certainly been climbing for the last 30 years. I really don’t know how charitable you’re expecting me to be with interpreting what you’re saying. When you say something that’s simply outright wrong, am I supposed to just guess that you meant to say something else that could kinda almost be seen as only a little bit wrong?
> This is such an obvious troll and a clear demonstration of your misunderstanding
It’s really not at all. How about you show some of that charity you’ve been talking about? Your problem stems from wages being determined by supply and demand. Well, there’s countries in the world today that have implemented the economic systems you’re advocating for. If you can’t think of a single one you’d even consider living in (aside from as say, an upper class foreigner), then what does that tell you about your ideas? I’m calling this out as an opportunity for you to put some more thought into your ideas, instead of jumping to the conclusion that people who challenge them are personally attacking you.
This is rediculous and dripping with silicon valley "we're workers too" attitude. Employees, especially tech employees, have the luxury of being able to go elsewhere if they don't feel they're being adequately compensated. There is no comparison between helping poor african groups or donating to education and giving your employees, who agreed their wages were fair, a raise. Even if you don't like it, it's ultimately his money. This isn't the alms that could have kept the poor coders from having to endure hardahip. It's difficult to comprehend the mentality that could see the workers as the victims in this situation. They were paid the wages they were promised, is the argument that somehow he's a bad person for amassing more than them?
They are not being 'deprived' of anything. They agreed to exchange their labor for a fixed price, and they received that price. There was no 'deprivation' anywhere in the system.
If you're withholding the fruits of labor from workers because "too bad, bro; you signed the paper" then you're not really trying to be kind to anyone. You just want to be rich and appear to be kind.
How much of the worker output actually is his personal accomplishment, and how much is synergy effect coming from the fact that the employer gave them tools, materials, support of other workers, standard operating procedures, know-how? Therefore not all "fruits of labor" actually belong to a worker.
.png){kind=link}
Except "trickle down" hasn't happened, isn't happening, and won't happen.