When does it start trickling down Mr Reagan?! When does it start trickling down!?
Buybacks allow shareholders to time capital gain better.
Pretty sure it's mostly the other way: They're low status because they're low paid.
Jobs are low paid when there is a big supply of people who can and want to do them. Which is pretty much equivalent to the jobs being low skilled.
Since everyone can flip a burger, you don't have to pay much to find someone to do it.
Admittedly this is relatively expensive sit-down restaurant service we're talking about here, which is different from the fast food market.
...at least that's the knee-jerk defense you hear from the priests of our current system (most mislead or benefiting from the corruption). If you don't support our current broken form of capitalism, you're labeled a blasphemer.
Heaven forbid we, as a society, re-evaluate the functionality of something adopted hundreds of years ago and adapt/change it without offering an impossibly proven successful alternative. Because, you know, the current economic system we have was proven successful before it was adopted.
It won't necessarily be trivial or painless but it will be less painful than it will at a later date, unless we want to pass the burden down to future generations.
What more can you ask, whether you're ranting in favor of or against socialism? Risk free returns maintain your purchasing power, while at the same time, you get essentially nothing for taking no risk with capital. This seems exactly how it should work in a perfect system...doesn't it?
The smallest reform to the healthcare system that I think would be substantially beneficial, is just to let ACA plans compete for employed people on an equal basis. It's unreasonable that once you have a job then you have to pay way more for a marketplace plan. I'm nowhere near my deductible for the forseeable future, but certain office visits doubled in price just because I have a job with a temp agency that provides shitty insurance that effectively disqualifies me for an ACA plan.
If the published number spikes, so does the COL adjustments for social security. This would easily put the government underwater.
These days it seems like non-professionals are priced out of all the most booming cities (despite there being plenty of non-professional work available). I don't think it's a coincidence that it's currently very difficult to get permission to build in many of those places (in 2014 Tokyo permitted 70% more housing units than all of California, despite having 1/3 the population). The under-supply of housing in places California of course increases the demand elsewhere too since those people that would otherwise live in California have to live somewhere.
Basic income could help mobility too since it makes it easier for lower-income people to move to where the jobs are (where they may not have a family safety net). Currently internal US migration is at a historically low level.
By that logic, you should be made to give everything you have to the people of Congo. Since when is morality determined by the size of one’s wallet?
I don't think it's reasonable to measure a society's morality by its tax rates only or to draw an equivalence between taxes and theft.
It's true that minimal government and taxes worked well in the US's early history. But if you think about it, that was an agricultural society where the main source of capital, land, was practically free. It's not surprising that relatively pure capitalism worked OK then, but historically it seems to have worked out less well in almost all other circumstances.
These days a lot of capital is in stocks in global corporations, with barriers to entry measured in the billions of dollars. It's not as simple as moving to the frontier and finding your own plot of land.
I think an ideal society delivers broad-based prosperity and individual freedoms with a dynamic market economy. And tax policy should preserve incentives to work and invest efficiently. But if there is a conflict between broad-based prosperity and zero tax rates / income redistribution, like in the example society above, the former should definitely be chosen over the latter.
I think going the other way around, rather than leading to a capitalist paradise, will only lead to the rise of ideologies that advocate heavy-handed state control of the economy, probably to the detriment of everyone.
Its part of the very wealthy keeping all the money - if nobody has a skilled job, we don't get (much) income, and wealth inequality zooms onward.
A better measure of employment would be, how much total payroll is across the country. Per capita if you like. That would tell us how we're doing. Not just a total of whom 'has a job'.