Ganked from metahacker

[ironphoenix]

This graph says it all, really.¹ Republicans are for the rich. It's that simple.

Why do so many poor and middle-class people vote for them?

---

1: Well, not really. It doesn't show the cuts to social programs that the Republican tax plan necessarily implies because of the reduction in net tax revenues, which generally hit low-income folks harder.

Comments

[squireofmichael.livejournal.com]

It has nothing to do with trickle-down. Trickle-down economics implies that a company gives a damn about making its workers happier or wealthier. It doesn't, I have no delusions about that.

I'm referring to economic growth. When the economy grows, there is more money to be made. What does a company do? It makes money. If there is more money to be made, the company is going to try to get that money. The greater the economic growth, the more opportunity to try to saturate the main markets, as well as tap into niche markets that would have been previously unprofitable. In order for a company to take advantage of the money to be made, it has to have adequate staffing in place. If its staff is not capable of fully taking advantage of the marketshare the company feels it is should be capable of, then the staff grows out of sheer necessity. The expansion of a company is inevitable during economic growth. Expansion meaning more employees, more supervisors, more departments, more products.

It is more cost-effective, practical, and overall good for worker morale (directly tied to productivity) to hire for new and/or higher-positions in-house. Thus my point about promotions/raises. I don't expect my company to give me more money or promote me for just doing my job. I expect them to look at what I have achieved on behalf of their bottom line and say, "Well, hell, this guy makes us money and looks good doing it. Let's put him in a position where he can do that for us even more and give him incentive to do so." Being the capitalistic asshole I am, I absolutely expect them to provide said incentive to make them money. If they don't, I'll find somewhere else to work.

Of course, companies are going to try to short-cut their workers for their bottom-line. Tough shit. It's as much the responsibility of the worker to *not* let them do that as it is the company to not do it in the first place.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

No, that's not what trickle-down theory states.

Most companies hire their senior managers from outside these days. Despite the factors you mention, few people who are stellar line-level employees make stellar executives. Of course, few people make stellar executives, period, regardless of what school's MBA they have. Heck, few people make stellar line-level employees, too. What I'm saying is that it's not the same people. Also, training people up is a cost and a risk (they might leave after getting the training, and they'll probably expect more money: "I absolutely expect them to provide said incentive to make them money. If they don't, I'll find somewhere else to work."), and most companies want to externalize their costs, so they prefer to hire people who already have the skills and track record.

Your last paragraph is exactly what unions are (supposed to be¹) all about.

---

1: As it is, I think they do way too much big-P politics, but then, so do corporations.