Millions of jobs to dissapear as robotics advance

yes a huge tax on all Americans, trade wars, and probably WW3 since trade with China has been our primary foreign policy to civilize them and make them allies rather than enemies. 1+1=2

- - - Updated - - -

very stupid of course since now everyone has nuclear weapons​

 

the poorer countries that the richer countries use for slave labor don't have food stamps, so they die if they quit their jobs.

 

100% stupid!!! China just created 500 million new jobs giving 100's of million the chance to quit and move up to better jobs. Thats why they now buy more cars movies and plane flights than Americans. Slaves??? See why we say liberalism is based in ignorance. Also, the Chinese save 50% of what they earn so have far more flexibility than Americans to quit. See why we say pure know nothing ignorance?

 

I don't know what they'll do. American's will pay more for products. It will be more expensive to live in America. As it becomes more expensive to do the same things in America than in other countries many business will turn their focus to other markets or other countries.

Offering Tax cuts (reduced penalties for doing business) when just the cost of doing business becomes prohibitively expensive won't have any impact.

You can take the dollars I have in my pocket today, but what will you do when that's gone? If the best businesses can make more money there than here, they'll make it there. You want to build a strong economy, tax cuts and tarifs won't do it. Develop real advantages for building, making, and delivering value here.



​

 

true we could double pay of poorer Americans tomorrow by shipping 30 million liberal illegals homes, and eliminating liberal corporate taxes, liberal unions and liberal budget deficits. That would be 50 million new jobs and huge upward pressure on wages!! 1+1=2

 

china recently became rich because crony capitalists at walmart paid Americans minimum wages instead of living wages, and outsourced jobs to their country for cheap labor instead of keeping them here and paying high wages.

would china have sent a nuclear missile to America because we had everything and didn't want to share, or steal the wealth of Americans?

 

100% illiterate. Walmart and perhaps most retailers are being driven out of business by Amazon. If they paid what you dishonestly call a living wage they would go bankrupt far sooner. Does the liberal want to bankrupt Americas largest employer? That is the non-thinking that libsocialists used to starve 120 million to death in USSR and Red China. Can you understand?

 

No one distributes "the nation's" income.

National income is nothing more than the sum of all individual incomes.

 

Policies certainly have an effect on the distribution of the nation's income.

When you increase FICA taxes working folks pay, when you slash investment taxes the richest pay, when you disempower unions from representing workers to leverage higher wages, when you lower the MW, when you reduce the scope and enforcement of overtime laws, those things (and others) have the effect of re-distributing income and wealth from working folks to the richer.

Which is why folks like you fight so hard to maintain the "trickle down" policies that have dominated since the "Reagan revolution".

 

Taxes don't impact income. Income is earned, and THEN taxes are assessed on that income.

And unions can represent any worker who wishes to be represented. There's no law against that.

 

The aggregate of all income received by the people in the nation.

 

Wrong. Income is affected by burden shifting.

Sometimes it is earned. Often it is merely received. The greater the income, the less likely any given portion of it is to have been earned.

 

So you're saying that the 1% TAKE [your yelling] 20% of the aggregate of all income received by the people in the nation.

They TAKE it? Or are they given it?

 

Taxes affect the income you have after taxes. And if your wealthier, with more income after taxes, you have more to save and invest which ultimately produces more income.

I'll admit I'm not an expert in unions, but I'm aware that there are a number of factors that affect how effective a union or organized labor can be at representing labor -- things like how elections are held, so-called "right to work" laws, consequences on what companies can do in retaliation, strike laws and rules, things like that.

Certainly some things have had an effect:



I certainly don't agree with everything about unions, but collective bargaining empowers workers to leverage higher wages so that workers share more in the income they produce.

Which is why folks like you are so adamant about keeping them suppressed.

 

No. Have you ever filed a tax return? First you determine your income, and then you determine how much tax you owe. Taxes don't modify your income. Your income occurs before taxes are assessed on that income.

First, income is received, and afterwards, taxes are assed on that income.

 

Except that when you eliminate 30 million households, you also eliminate the spending of 30 million households and all the jobs that creates.

Saying that the answer to employment and wages is to eliminate the number of people, which is Donald's solution, is a losers' proposition. The answer is to increase the share of income going to the workers so they have the purchasing power to create more demand and more jobs.

 

Taxes don't impact income. They do, however, determine how much of your wealth the government steals from you.

Any group of workers can form a group and bargain via representatives. There's nothing at all stopping them from doing so.

 

See above. If you slash the tax on the wealthy by half, you are multiplying their discretionary income which they invest, which produces more income.

Furthermore, if the tax is used to create jobs for people that don't otherwise have them, you are creating more income for working folk, who then spend more creating more demand.

 

And they determine how much more the richest have to invest and jobs availalbe for working people to increase their income and spending.

Repetitive. See my response above. To claim that policies and rules and regulations and even media coverage don't effect the ability of unions is simply nonsense.

But I can understand why you are so adamant at keeping them suppressed. Unions leverage higher wages for workers, giving them a higher share of the income they produce -- and less to the owners/management.

 

I see. So you aren't opposed to the rich contributing more to the national income. You are opposed to their wealth not being taken from them to be redistributed to "working folk".

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not interested in keeping unions suppressed. I think any people should be able to organize for whatever peaceful purpose they wish. If workers wish to organize and negotiate as a group, I'm all for that. More power to them.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Good for you.

 

You say that you oppose the 1% getting too much of "the nation's income", but what you really oppose is that the government isn't taking enough of their property and redistributing it to "working folk".

 

Partly. I absolutely oppose privileged low tax rates of 20% (it was only 15% for years) on investment income that is exempt from FICA taxes. I oppose a regressive FICA tax structure. I think taxes should be progressive.

But if you read my thread, many of the things I discussed are ways that can increase workers' wages outside the tax system.

 

Right. You want the government to take the property of the wealthy and redistribute it.

Oh yeah, and you want to use force and compulsion to force employers to pay higher wages.

So, all in all, force and compulsion to take from and control others. Like a little ray of sunshine!

 

You're making a presumption that it is their property.

Companies do that all the time when they negotiate for things.

Again, you're making a presumption it should be theirs in the first place.