Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (16432)	4/27/2017 3:38:18 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 365120

Yawn. There you go again. It isn't a sacred belief with me. It has been proven repeatedly that in a consumer driven economy, consumers need money to spend. There is a whole body of proof on that. Like the most efficient way to stimulate the economy is to put money in the hands of those lowest on the income ladder. Putting money in the hands at the top translates to greater investment. Which is great if there is a lack of investment. Ford was cognizant of that. Increasing wages for his employees meant several things. Yes, it did reduce employee churn. Which meant more trained people for his assembly lines. It also meant they were more likely to buy his products. Which reduced his costs due to volume. But it also meant putting more money in the hands of people who provided goods and services to his employees. Since things like Walmart didn't exist, the vast majority of that money was quickly spent because those people weren't particularly wealthy either. So the velocity of that money is very high. And so on. You want to analyze the wage increase on the direct impact. There is a lot of evidence that Ford was thinking about the bigger picture. If nothing else, his response to the Great Depression. Now, for structural reasons I don't think if his advice had been heeded, we could have avoided it. But it certainly would have reduced its severity. I know you will disregard this like you have in the past. I imagine it is great comfort to believe that the ones you argue with don't have real arguments. Because it might force you to consider contrary evidence. That is the problem when you indulge in fringe economics.