How much do you expect a company to grow if now 75% (50% was bad enough!!!!) of its profits are being handed out to employees in addition to the wages the employees agreed to work for? You realize that things like R&D, as well as the literal building of new facilities capable of keeping up with the ever changing technology require HUGE capital expenditures, right? Where do you think the money for that comes from??? It comes from the profits you're wishing to hand out to employees who did nothing to earn them......

So the company........ which you own no part of.... but are gracious enough to allow 25% of the revenue to be reinvested into...... may be able to scrape by on that but they surely will not be able to innovate or expand.

You do realize that investing in the market comes with RISKS right, and that those who invest in companies expect to earn a return that makes it a risk worth taking?

In your scenario, an investor would have to be stupid to invest in a company that's only returns will be based on the tiny amount the company will be able to grow due to strangling labor costs.... anyone with even the most basic knowledge of economics would know it would be much more prudent to instead put their money in no-risk (or almost no risk) options such high yield savings accounts or government securities.

But really, your arguments have just gotten so far out in left field now that I'm finding it hard to even debate this with you.

“If socialist’s ACTUALLY understood economics,,, there wouldn’t be any socialists”

Great quote!

I have always wondered .....if the company lost money one or two years would the employees then have to reimburse the shareholders instead of receiving 50-75% of the profits or their full wage ?

Would employees be satisfied getting stock instead of a check every two weeks ??
Something tells me those things wouldn't happen.

That is why 'skin in the game' matters.

The whole concept reminds me of the 20th Century Motor Company

We had deeper depressions before the a Great Depression. Government involvement is what made it last till WW2
The previous recessions took much less time to recover.


There's always a cycle.

What industry has vastly improved after the government bailed it out other than the banking industry ?

The first principle of economics is: Don’t transfer income by distorting prices. The first principle of politics is the opposite.

FDR and Woodrow Wilson are probably the 2 worst presidents the US ever had... Most of the problems we face today can be traced back to either one or both of their administrations.

No public sector unions. Ever. If you want better wages and benefits then get your butt out in the private sector and compete for it like the rest of us.

Set a cap on individual campaign donations... The only way a corporation or union gets to donate to a campaign is if the employee signs an affidavit stating the company/union is allowed to donate in their name... And only up to the cap amount.No signed affidavit, no donation. And if the employee allows the company to donate in their name, they can't donate again on their own. And if the company/union fails to produce the affidavit for a single employee when asked... All donations made by said company/union must be returned by the candidate to the company/union.

Mike

Pretty hard to set campaign donations unless we change the constitution.

FEC | Candidate | Contribution limits https://share.google/VyESJayGBDC9Gvu4v

Mike

With a proper education lashondra may not have 8 kids with 7 different daddies and also would have some intelligence to have a job, I have the belief that schools should be paid for through property tax like it was here for many years not by the state nor federal, so the school system is controlled at the local level. The idea of not providing an education for people is why the federal government got involved in the first place, to clarify I’m talking k-12 above and beyond that they’re on their own.

A good example of a non existent k-12 education system is Honduras you have some that have an education and decent but those without fall into a life of crime and the cycle continue’s. I believe the comment has been made on here several times about how low the education level is in this country now just think how bad it’d be without some type of public education.

Great!! I like it!!

Isn't every single teachers union in this country now part of NEA. In other words........there's only ONE teachers union in this country?
In the words of the NEA top lady: " We want all the things!" Watched her say that about 10 times in a speech within the last year.

Are we sure about that? Are we sure it wouldn't be better? I think most people, regardless of race want their children to be educated. But as it is now, many parents treat school as a babysitter.... trusting that the government-provided school will teach their children. And many have no other involvement in their children's education beyond ensuring that they make it to school.

Now... if gov't funded schools didn't exist, but instead private schools did (which would no doubt be more affordable than private schools today since there would be no government schools).... and if parents wanted their children to be educated..... they'd pay for the schooling. BUT since the money is now coming directly out of their paychecks, do you not think it's a little more likely that parents would be more inclined to keep a better eye on just what they are getting for that money??

I do of course think there would be different quality levels of schools in that scenario. Obviously the rich kids will likely get the best education while the poorest get the least education.... but isn't that already the case anyways? Even in the lowest class neighborhoods... if there were no public schools and no government-funded daycare... parents would still need a babysitter so they might as well pay for one where their child will get an education at the same time, right?

Would there be a faction of kids that receive no education? Of course. But again I'd argue that that is already the case. Plenty of kids miss more school than they attend, others are "home-schooled" but in reality not schooled at all, while still others attend school but never learn a thing, instead being nothing but a disruption that hinders other's learning.

Our education system is badly broken. I don't believe that the government is the entity to fix it. Like in every other instance, the private sector always does a much more efficient job than government-funded businesses do.

Education is a key element of our national defense. Defense is now very technical. We need engineers to design and build weapons that are superior to those of our enemies. Nobody wants a ground or trench war between one infantry and another.