Wages have been stagnant for years

Explain to me why you think that.

>Housing, Medicine are highest regulated industries
>THE SOLUTION IS MORE GOVERNMENT
Why don't we de-regulate those industries instead?

Attached: cost of goods.jpg (600x464, 158K)

>when the fuck is this shit gonna trickle down already?
It is trickling down on you, user. The wealthy are in fact pissing on all if us, don't worry.

>that's a massive leap
So what does investment do in your world?
When Tim Schafer wants to make a new game, and needs money to hire people to code and create assets, what are the people giving him money doing?

Attached: Tim Schafer.jpg (600x355, 61K)

What along this chain of events do you find objectionable?
>Jeff Bezos creates company, starts by selling books out of his garage, he's raised by a single Mom, puts out a service people use and allows hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to have jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist
>People like it, it becomes popular
>Goes public, groups like Pensions, banks, private citizens, all want a piece of Amazon, there's a limited supply of stocks so they drive up the price and let all kinds of people get a little piece of something they consider to have a big future.
>Since Bezos owned the company he created, his shares are valuable and he is the richest man on Earth
The previous richest man, Bill Gates, only reached that point by making billions more in value. Through standardizing operating systems globally, he allowed Japanese developers to sell software to Americans, for Germans to collaborate with Italy and South Korea, and this standardization allowed many businesses to become more productive, and survive where they otherwise would have died.

Why is letting him keep more money that he has a right to, as he got as a result of voluntary transactions, giving him money? Who owns his money, his labour? The government, or him?
If he keeps more food on his plate, is that a gift from government? Or the world working as it aught to

Attached: adam.jpg (648x278, 37K)

>Investment does create jobs
But only when the cost of automation is higher than the cost of labor, and guess what user.....

Attached: 651-amazone-robots.jpg (600x470, 79K)

>But it was cheaper to put lead in the insulin!

Are you retarded?

So let's look at the field with the most automation.
Are we better or worse off, now that 70% of the population is not working as farmers?

Attached: agriculture.png (3000x2100, 228K)

Medicine is highly regulated. Ever heard of right to try?
youtube.com/watch?v=2sXx-Gd5bd8
Dallas buyers club?
Only until recently, it was illegal for terminally ill patients to get medication that wasn't approved by the FDA. What was the worst that could happen?
There is a lot of work currently done by doctors, that could easily be done by the much larger supply of nurses in this country, safely and effectively.
The American Medical Association has acted as a giant cartel bringing up medical costs through increased regulation

You do not build a factory, hire workers, buy resources, make a product etc etc anymore if you invest you money for maximal possible profit.
That hasn't the case for decades.

You juggle financial derivatives, exchange currencies or obligations, trade financial constructs that are purely virtual, and indeed so nonexistent that they disappear on the flick of a switch.
Investing in a factory is at this point something you leave to third world shitholes or haltingly do as favor for a politician to buy his nod for your taxbreaks.

I think it's too early to conclude one way or another what the long term impacts of the current wave of automation will be. But as the person who pointed out the agricultural statistics alluded to, previous waves of automation have left us much better off. To say that this time is different is a bold proposition. Virtually every previous wave of technology driven disruption has been met with the same claims of impending doom and with zero exception those claims have been proven wrong.

It's something to watch certainly. And if this time somehow does turn out to be different it will require concerted government action to help people adapt. But I do not accept that we should discourage or prohibit technological advancement, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

when did i say more government? we need less government desu

also your pic is bad. efficency has gone up greatly, but people are still working the same number of hours, same number of days, and wages have measurably stagnated, regardless of what one cherrypicked example says, overall theyve stagnated.

when the industrial revolution happened, we went from only having sunday off to the standard work week having 2 days off. and now with the increased efficency we've seen, we can continue to progress, but dont, because the rich want to hoard more wealth at the cost of the well-being of everyone else

see my pic. note when shit changed around the 70s, this is a common trend for when things started to go downhill, and its due to shithead Regan and the meme of trickle down economics

forgot pic because i have terminal retardation here u go

Attached: iCTuo.jpg (495x314, 38K)

I'd like you to pick just one of those examples - the choice is yours - and explain in detail exactly how you think someone makes a return from it.

I sometimes trade derivates in the course of my job and I don't understand how you claim derivatives are virtual or nonexistent. Some derivatives trading is zero sum, that is true. And in that sense you're correct, it is not investment in the sense that I had used the word. But it isn't totally devoid of societal benefit. Even zero sum derivatives trading involves the transfer of real world risk. That does yield efficiency gains in the financial markets. Think of it as lubricating the machinery of actual capital investment.

Every moronic abstraction of "trickle down" always boil down to: dumb cash into an economy, and surprise surprise: it spreads around.
I could just as easily make a cute pyramid where the poor magically get more wealth from somewhere, they spend more on consumer goods, which increases the demand, which increases the potential profitability of expanding the market for the production and distribution of consumer goods, which spurs investment etc.
And all I have to do, like your pic, is ignore all the negative consequences.
If you want to make the working class wealthy, increase demand for what they're producing. If you want to make your economy grow, increase the amount of money that's invested in sectors that will allow you to make your economy grow even more in the future.
But how you do that depends on your circumstances, it might not always even be possible, and it's a lot more complicated than just saying "more money for group x will always result in economic growth for reasons".

That's roughly when the gold standard was dumped entirely.

I should also point out that if you want to aim for "maximal possible profit" you wouldn't trade derivatives, you'd invest, long term, in private equity or venture capital, which is exactly the kind of capital investment that I was talking about.

>we
LoL not happening ever.
Gen y is too lazy and entitled,
Gen z is a bunch of soiboys and trannies.

Good times have indeed created weak men.

Lube for the trade..things of that sort used be called bribes for oldtimers like me.
And I have certain doubts about any social benefits from them, aside from keeping your(or your employers, not intending to get personal here) hand firmly on the tiger you all ride.

The "lube" has also grown too a far bigger financial mass then all the wheels it was supposed to grease together, or that is at least how it seems from my pretty limited perspective.
Else financial transaction taxes would not be such fighting words.

Let me give you an example of what I mean when I talk about greasing the wheels. Say that an oil trader has a entered into a contract to deliver one million barrels of oil to a refinery this summer and is concerned about oil prices rising because of geopolitical tensions in Iran. They have three options.

1. Wear the price risk. If prices go up they are forced to close their short position at a loss.

2. Hedge by buying millions of barrels of oil in advance. This is obviously extremely wasteful if prices don't actually rise or end up falling.

3. Hedge by buying some derivate, e.g. a call option, on oil that allows them to transfer the price exposure to an entity like a bank that may be less sensitive to it.

Option three isn't a bribe. It is, like I said, a transfer of real world risk. In this case from an entity that cannot adequately bear that risk to one that can. There isn't anything sinister about that and the societal benefits should be obvious.

By the way, any time you buy insurance you are essentially buying a type of derivate called a swap.

interesting, same as But I am really too much of a poorfag for any of that to ever matter to me aside from being curious, desu.

Still gets my twisted mind wondering what happens if he buys option 3 from an Iranian trader, perhaps one with the local governments ear.

user u just gotta work harder and you'll get all the money :)

Investment in the proper sense--purchasing or creating fixed assets for the purpose of production--is done, first and foremost, in response to the perception of increasing demand. That is, business owners will only expand operations if they think the additional goods or services will actually be consumed. Hence trickle-down gets the story backwards: owners will invest so long as the expected return on the investment exceeds the cost of making it, and that has relatively little to do with the fed funds rate, and nothing at all to do with income taxes on the highest brackets. And the reason investment is falling is that austerity cripples demand.