Trump's Economy

[_The CCC]

I agree with the possible exception of nuclear. Fission not so much; Fusion I can get on board with.

[_subgenius]

Tax cuts for the already rich are a distraction at best. All they do is under-fund vital services. How many pillow cases can one rich person use?
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

That makes so much sense, and the high standard of living and prosperity that Americans had heretofore enjoyed was largely the result of entrepreneurs and industrialists like Henry Ford who realized that fairly paid and happy workers who could afford to buy the products of American industry were indispensable for a prosperous and sustainable economy. Today's insatiable corporate greed and disregard for the well being of their employees will inevitably come back and bite them in the fundament if it continues.

you mean like when Ford got caught violating the Wagner Act in 1938? or when Ford plant wages were well below industry averages in 1941? or did you just appreciate Ford's anti-Semitism?

Point being, as usual, you are uninformed and choose to perpetuate the myth. Ford own reason for raising wages at his plants was because he was experiencing high levels of employee turnover - which was more expensive than paying workers to stay. He never had any grand design to pay his workers enough to buy the very cars they were building (a wholly separate and idiotic equation of nonsense a.k.a. indentured servitude much?)
Additionally note that the "high wage" was a combination of a wage and a "bonus"...the bonus being dependent on an employee being "Americanized" and was avoiding booze and gambling....to this end Ford employed the "Social Organization" that visited workers' homes and ensured these lifestyles were being lived.
So yeah, your myth is....well, a liberal myth.

[_Gunnar]

The point remains that whatever Ford's reasons for increasing the pay of his workers, the economy as a whole, including the wealthy, gains by having a workforce that is paid well enough to afford to buy the products they help to produce. Well informed, enlightened self interest should convince corporate leaders and business people that treating their employees fairly and generously is, in the long run, of more benefit even to themselves (and not just monetarily) than mercilessly exploiting their employees and trying to pay them the absolute minimum they can get away with.

[_aussieguy55]

I read something interesting that the major employer in the majority of Red States is Walmart. I understand that employees in that firm are not overpaid. What happens if Trump puts tariffs on Chinese imports which are items that store like Walmart would sell most of.
Here in Australia wage growth has been stagnant. So Government retrieves less tax. Much of our wealth depends on China importing our minerals and agricultural products. A downturn in China affects us. The Government just passed taxcuts for small businesses. Will this increase employment? I would think the amount of discretionary income someone had would affect their decision to employ more. Many shops here have for lease signs, there is a growth in opshops and my dentist sends out 20 dollar vouchers to his patients to come back rather than delay doing the 6 month visit. Meanwhile the present Government which attacked the previous one for debt is still increasing debt. They forgo 50 billion dollars in taxes from small business.

[_subgenius]

The point remains that whatever Ford's reasons for increasing the pay of his workers, the economy as a whole, including the wealthy, gains by having a workforce that is paid well enough to afford to buy the products they help to produce. Well informed, enlightened self interest should convince corporate leaders and business people that treating their employees fairly and generously is, in the long run, of more benefit even to themselves (and not just monetarily) than mercilessly exploiting their employees and trying to pay them the absolute minimum they can get away with.

Yet nothing you provided proves your claim. It doesn't take a genius to understand that "business does well with customers". However, you clearly overestimate how many people actually worked for Ford as compared to how many people were customers.
For example, let us do the math:

In 1914
Ford with 13,000 employees produced about 300,000 cars
299 other companies with 66,350 employees produced about 280,000 vehicles

"It doesn't take a genius to understand" that this is a total of 79,350 employees producing 580,000 vehicles....(and note that by 1920 Ford had produced 15,000,000 model T vehicles)

"It doesn't take a genius to understand" that if every employee bought a car (without an employee discount) you would still have over 85% of the new vehicle inventory, with production continuing the next year...resulting in another 580k vehicles, but employees already have a car from last year.

so, see - when we look at the numbers...clearly you are an idiot on this issue with your imaginary economic impact.

[_The CCC]

If the employees can afford the cars they help create, then they buy them. It also allows the employee to buy the gasoline to power it. Which provides more income to the employees of fossil fuels. Someone has to repair and/service those cars. Which provides more income to mechanics. Mechanics then buy more cars. Which makes more income for the car company officials. Employees also have to eat. Ad infinitum.

[_Kevin Graham]

It doesn't take a genius to understand that subgenius lives for the straw man argument.

[_The CCC]

It doesn't take a genius to understand that subgenius lives for the straw man argument.

Yep.