‘Trickle-down’ economics haven’t done much for workers’ salaries

6 Comments | Leave a Comment

I would like to remind the people of many of the benefits workers received from profitable companies prior to the 1980s.

There were retirement plans, health care insurance, yearly raises based upon performance, company picnics for employees and their families, Christmas bonuses, Christmas parties for employees’ children, holiday turkeys or hams for employees. These benefits were all financed from companies’ profits.

In the ’80s the American people elected Ronald Reagan president, who was successful in selling elected officials a snake oil economic idea called “trickle down” economics.

The idea was to provide investors more of the company profits. Investors would, in turn, have more money to make investments into businesses, thus creating more jobs.

This idea turned out to be a disaster for the working class and a boom for investors. President George H.W. Bush proved to be correct in defining Reagan’s economic policies as “voodoo.”

Since implementing economic policies to support Reagan’s idea, workers have lost all of the company-sponsored benefits that existed prior to his election.

Employees, now having to provide their own health care and retirement funds, have seen a reduction in their take-home wages.

Many now go years without raises, and the only jobs created were in foreign countries where companies could maximize their profits by exploiting cheaper labor.

Yet today we have many elected officials and those seeking elected office praising this president.

Many of our working class seem to be buying into this praise and voting for these individuals. Are these individuals aware that many of these officials still support Reagan’s economic policies?

Has the working class no idea of the history of how workers also benefited from helping to make American companies profitable? Have they no idea of the economic catastrophe many working class families are experiencing due to this snake oil? I hope not.

MERRELL 
R. WASHINGTON

Rocky Mount

Comments

Ted

It doesn't trickle down when it's locked up in an ice cap (i.e., the paper wealth of the top 1%) ... Leyman Brothers was worth how many billions before losing it all in a matter of hours? Yet, instead of making the shareholders bite the bullet for the other firms' mistakes, they got bailed out by the public. Now these banksters know they're doubly insulated. It's hard to argue the current economy isn't an enormous ponzi scheme.

Trickle Down

Trickle down works when the stream is unimpeded. When government siphons off extreme amounts of money, those who send that money downstream to the workers are unable to do so. Trickle down worked for Reagan because he lowered tax rates. Money flowed unobstructed into the federal coffers and unimpeded to the workers.

Progressive politician's hatred of free enterprise and wealth compelled themselves to raise tax rates and seek to punish those who have the money and send it down to the workers.

Reaganomics will still work, if we can get Uncle Sam out of the pockets of the wealthy and quit taking money from the productive citizens and give it to those who choose not to work. Cut off the free money to the sloths and capitalism will flourish again with increased workers in the workforce, lower unemployment because of new jobs, and a steady stream of trickle down.

If this isn't done very soon, Atlas will shrug, and the world will come crashing down.

The current president

SSSSSUUUUUCCCCCKKKKKKSSSSSS. Stinking dog.

Trends

Although differences in pay, wealth, and benefits can't be blamed completely on Reagan and Trickle Down Economics you mention trends that have been occurring-developing for many years. Definitely people at the top have continued to increase their wealth. This has occurred during republican and democrat administrations including Obama. Companies have been moving away from defined benefit or pensions in favor of defined contribution plans such as 401-k plans. Many if not most people no longer work for 1 or even 2 employers during their career. So they are not as likely to work for 1 company and retire with a nice pension and retiree healthcare etc. Companies often make changes in their retirement plans too and there is turnover among the firms which provide retirement services to employees. There is 1 argument you could have made. Democrats typically are more supportive of big government and unions. Many workers at unionized companies and with various government agencies generally receive more attractive retirement plans/pensions, healthcare, and pay than other employers. Of Course there are cases where union benefits have caused companies financial problems such as bankruptcy as well.

Trickle Down Eonomics

Certainly Reagan was an above average president. Many people like to use the word great. Economically Rocky Mount and the twin counties were doing better under Reagan during the 1980's than today or in recent decades. That may not be all due to Reagan but people like to give the president credit when things are going well or visa versa. Certainly economic conditions were better and improved greatly under Reagan nationally when compared to democrat Jimmy Carter. After saying that I should point out that the writer of the letter does have some important points. It does seem like people have less secure/lucrative retirement plans than people did many years ago unless you work for the government or a select few private companies. Also, many low wage jobs were created under Reagan and subsequent presidents. I am not sure one can argue that low wage workers have benefited greatly under trickle down economics unless you want to say they are lucky to have a low wage job. Whether this is all due to Reagan and Trickle down economics is debatable. Reagan hasn't been in office for nearly 30 years. Although you could possibly argue that companies have such a short term focus on profits-sales and are not as concerned about the long term well being of expendable assets such as employees.

I have a suggestion

I am proud to say Ronald Reagan was the first President I voted for. Personally, I was tired of how our Country was a laughing stock around the world. Similar to how we are today. He restored pride in our country which is what we need today. Not some apologetic President trying to make me feel guilty for being an American. I am not an economist or business owner but why would I invest here when it is much cheaper to do so overseas. I am fairly certain President Reagan, who has been out of office for almost 30 years, has nothing to do with today's economic doldrums. It seems to this reader business owners are just taking advantage of cheaper taxes overseas and trade agreements agreed to by politicians on both sides of the isle. I have a suggestion for whomever the working class is you are referring to. Can't get a raise for several years. Be thankful you have a job or get a job that gives raises. Complaining about rising healthcare costs. I thought Obamacare was going to take care of that. Blame those that voted for it or the ones who touted claims that aren't true. Look for a company that pays for healthcare costs. Nothing is free in this world as many are starting to find out. Better yet...quit blaming the world and do something about it. I've relocated many times for those jobs that you say are non-existant. Just not in this Democratic controlled, over taxed, part of the state.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments