politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Because most Americans can’t afford to loose a week of pay?
Because it’s a zero-sum game and most Americans are losing so rich fucks can have their “good economy”.
Biden is so fucking out of touch it’s embarrassing.
That does seem to be what his rhetoric is pointing at:
"bring prices down"? Does Biden think we're in a deflationary period or is he intentionally misleading people?
EDIT: It's weird how when people ask why prices haven't come down they're mocked for not understanding the difference between deflation and lower inflation. But when the president of the United States confuses them and I point it out I get down voted. Classy people. Classy.
It’s not allowed to discuss “bring wages up.” Only impossibilities of putting the genie back in the bottle such as this. That way Biden can continue to deliver on his most important promise to donors - nothing will fundamentally change.
The latter or both.
On the contrary, the fastest growth in real income right now is among those in the lowest quintile. Which means income inequality is actually decreasing for the first time in decades.
“Fastest growing in real income” sounds really fancy.
But it’s a bit misleading. I assume you’re looking at percentage gains. For someone working 40 hrs/week 42 weeks a year, a dollar raise (which is huge for that “lowest quintile”), would equate to a bit more than 2,000 per year.
At federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, that dollar gain represents an increase of 13%. At 15 an hour, its a 6% gain. At 200k/year? Barely a percent. For Walmart CEO, for example, who’s salary is 24.1 million is barely even worth mentioning at .08%.
Said another way, Walmart has 2.2 million “associates” which iirc, is everyone whose not a manager. Let’s say 3 million people who aren’t corporate because I don’t care to go get the accurate stats and frankly want to keep the math easy.
So if they gave them all a 1 dollar raise, that would cost Walmart 3 million dollars. Last year, Walmarts annual gross profit was 147.568 billion, with a 2.65% increase over ‘22. An increase of 3.8 billion dollars.
You know the difference between a million and a billion? About a billion. That hypothetical dollar increase would have been a rounding error on their financial statements.
I think your numbers are off. It would cost $3m to give 3m workers a bump of exactly one dollar on exactly one paycheck. That's not a 13% increase. It's not even a 0.01% increase.
If you actually wanted to increase the wage of 3m full time workers from $7.25 to $8.25, it would cost $6 billion.
This isn't really relevant. Gross profit is Walmart sales minus what it paid manufacturers for its products. So if it buys a TV for $200 and sells it for $300, that's $100 in gross profit.
Gross profit is used to pay employees, rent, utilities, advertisers, etc. The amount left over after paying the bills is the operating income. Then they pay taxes on that, and the actual earnings (aka net income) are left over.
Nearly all of Walmart's gross profit was used to pay employees, etc. Their operating income was $23 billion in 2023, which is a decrease of 20% from the previous year. Of note, this coincides with pay increases for Walmart's hourly workers, from $17.50 to $18/hr on average.
That's a mountain sized "etc" covering mainly shareholder dividends and artificial profit minimizing for tax avoidance purposes.
The publicly reported profit margins are always AFTER those things and as such as informative about reality as having literally no information.
No, operating income does not take dividend payments into account.
The fact is that employee payroll/salaries is one of Walmart's biggest expenses by far, and gross profit does not include it. So you cannot use gross profit to argue that Walmart could afford to give its workers a raise.
It's the equivalent of looking only at someone's salary and then saying they should put more away for retirement. You are ignoring their expenses.
That just shows that the economy is not "booming" as they say in the capitalist media - the needle may be moving in the right direction, but we need to acknowledge that the current position of that needle is deep in the gutter, with a lot of improvement still needed before the voting public feels like the economy is actually working for them. Claiming that the economy is doing well, when the people are not doing well economically except for a handful of ultrawealthy, causes feelings of resentment and alienation in people who are currently working hard and still unable to afford basic necessities, ie the majority of Americans. It makes the journalists and the politicians they appear to be hyping seem out of touch and unaware of the problems the voters are dealing with, and therefore it does not inspire hope that those problems are being worked on.
Showing that the needle is moving in the right direction is an important component of effective messaging, but so is demonstrating a clear eyed view of the problem. Articles that talk about how 'strong' the economy is fail on the latter.