Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is with
a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and are
ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

Don't challenge Doug, he is our resident expert in economics. And if you
don't believe me ask him and he will tell you so.


"Starbuck" wrote in message
news
Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is
with a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and
are ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

The problem with raising salaries without an increase in productivity is it
places a "inflation tax" on those who can least afford the tax, those on a
fixed income. I am sure many in here can remember the stories during the
80's when we had 17% inflation and the elderly were eating dog food because
that is all they could afford.



"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Don't challenge Doug, he is our resident expert in economics. And if you
don't believe me ask him and he will tell you so.


"Starbuck" wrote in message
news
Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is
with a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and
are ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
The problem with raising salaries without an increase in productivity is
it
places a "inflation tax" on those who can least afford the tax, those on a
fixed income. I am sure many in here can remember the stories during the
80's when we had 17% inflation and the elderly were eating dog food
because
that is all they could afford.

The unions won't care since they are the least likely group ever to pay
union dues in the future, the the liebral socialist democrats would rather
coddle the up and coming potential voters than those that will only be
around for one or two more election cycles.




"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Don't challenge Doug, he is our resident expert in economics. And if you
don't believe me ask him and he will tell you so.


"Starbuck" wrote in message
news
Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is
with a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You
may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the
fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and
are ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move
to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That
way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

Starbuck wrote:

Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%.

???

You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change."

If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained
constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an
increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but
probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did
(increased spending tends to increase investment in production which
tends to increase technology etc etc).

It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close.

I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your
tremendous expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About
Economics In One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:

Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%.

???

You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change."

If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained
constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an
increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but
probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did
(increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends
to increase technology etc etc).

It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close.

I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous
expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In
One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker?

DSK


A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10 days.
And the net gain would be a minus %. Bracket creep on tax charts. And how
are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices concurrently?

Bill McKee wrote:
A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10 days.

Really? Across the board? Evenly distributed in all consumer categories,
or will staples/necissities go up faster?


And the net gain would be a minus %.

If that were true, then the average standard of living would always tend
to decrease. I guess the fact that we live in air-conditioned houses,
not caves, hasn't been noticed by you?


... Bracket creep on tax charts.

Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?

... And how
are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices concurrently?


The same way President Bush raises expenditures... astronomically...
without raising revenue.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10
days.

Really? Across the board? Evenly distributed in all consumer categories,
or will staples/necissities go up faster?


And the net gain would be a minus %.

If that were true, then the average standard of living would always tend
to decrease. I guess the fact that we live in air-conditioned houses, not
caves, hasn't been noticed by you?


Productivity has gone up with wages. You are only going to raise wages.
Therefore all prices have to follow directly or greater.


... Bracket creep on tax charts.

Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?


If you raise all wages 25% and the prices will have to raise at least 25% to
cover the extra costs, yes bracket creep will leave you with less spendable
money. Example (ignore real tax rates). You make $100 / week. You get the
25% raise to $125 / week But prices have gone up 25% also. At $100/ week
you paid 20% of your money in income taxes. Leaving you with $80. With a
25% increase in income your tax bracket is now 22%. Or $27.50 Leaving you
with $97.50 or a 21% increase, while prices will raise 25%.

... And how are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices
concurrently?

The same way President Bush raises expenditures... astronomically...
without raising revenue.

DSK


And you go into bigger debt. Just like this Congress and the President are
doing. Include the Congress, as they are the only ones to allocate money to
spend. And that includes the Democrats and the Republicans. Those same D's
and R's who passed a transportation bill with $27 billion, that is with a
capitol "B", load of pork in it. Yes it was voted for by the Boxer's,
Pelosi's, Feinstein's, Kennedy's, Kerry's, etc. of the Congress as well as
the Republicans.

Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?

Bill McKee wrote:
... yes bracket creep will leave you with less spendable
money.

Welcome to the Nitwits Who Can't Do Math Club for wanna-be economists.


.. Example (ignore real tax rates).

Yes, you'd do far better to ignore reality when you're doing pretend math.

In the real world the brackets are far enough apart that you are *much*
better off in the higher income bracket.

As for the rest of the "economics" bull**** you and the other angry dumb
white men are espousing, inflation and wages are linked but seperate.
That is why economists often talk of trends where incomes rise faster
than inflation, for example this was the case thru most of the 1990s.
Then there are times when income stagnates for the majority and
inflation keeps going, like the period we seem to be in now.

I guess it makes you feel better to try and prove that "it *has* to be
this way" so you don't have to blame your Noble Leader for screwing
everything up.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?

Bill McKee wrote:
... yes bracket creep will leave you with less spendable
money.

Welcome to the Nitwits Who Can't Do Math Club for wanna-be economists.


.. Example (ignore real tax rates).

Yes, you'd do far better to ignore reality when you're doing pretend math.


Not like you who ignores reality when proposing everybody get a 25% boost in
pay.

In the real world the brackets are far enough apart that you are *much*
better off in the higher income bracket.


Only if you make more money relative to the population. If everybody gets
the 25% increase with no change in productivity. Classic inflation. And
inflation has always benefited the governments via vracket creep.

As for the rest of the "economics" bull**** you and the other angry dumb
white men are espousing, inflation and wages are linked but seperate. That
is why economists often talk of trends where incomes rise faster than
inflation, for example this was the case thru most of the 1990s. Then
there are times when income stagnates for the majority and inflation keeps
going, like the period we seem to be in now.


Productivity.

I guess it makes you feel better to try and prove that "it *has* to be
this way" so you don't have to blame your Noble Leader for screwing
everything up.

DSK


I blame my noble Congress for passing extreme amounts of spending bills.
Really larded up spending bills. I blame Bush vor not vetoing a bunch of
the spending bills, and sending them back to be de-porked. Either put the
blame where it belongs, on the only branch of government who can impose
spending, or give the POTUS line item veto.