Відео

An interesting take! This is a long answer, but you must have triggered something in the team, and we wanted to provide something thoughtful! Maybe we'll make a video on this later too. TLDR: The video is for sure the overly simplistic take because we view that's what's at the highest level and impact: the greed are greedy and taking from the general populace. Monetary policy has some blame, but in our view, more of it lies on the greedy are more capable at being greedy through technology. The rest of the super long answer: We agree that greed hasn't changed... ever. Greed is greed, and greedy people are greedy. But the ways to act on greed and to make that greed happen while hiding it has not yet become regulated. You're correct that monetary policy leads to shifts, and it has blame. Constant changes in corporate taxes (taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/), the Fed keeping interest rates high, etc. Because of the laws, companies change how they're operating and if they want to be cash heavy or not so they may lay people off. Some companies keep the cash. Some like McDonald's give a significant amount in dividends, but you're still better off having a job than hoping the dividends will carry you through. Background and history: Here's an interesting case from 1919 when the US Supreme Court forced Ford Motors to pay dividends. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co Not all companies do this, but there is deep precedent for paying out to shareholders. And if shareholders have large ownership or work as the CEO and want more ownership, then what does the company do to keep shares high? They keep them onboard. It's rare for companies to get rid of someone: it happens but it's not like an annual thing; whereas, layoffs and lower pay is becoming more common place despite execs and C-suites taking more. Additionally, we're still dealing with ramifications from the 1980s of corporate greed and pushing limits. This is an excellent article to read: hbr.org/1992/01/crime-greed-big-ideas-what-were-the-80s-about But companies have gotten savvier and become far more capable with globalization, mass communication via the internet, and data science on petabytes of data. They can have tax shelters and hold corporate profits in other countries outside of the US. They can communicate quicker and make deals (many that are illegal but they won't be found out until later and it just becomes a slap on the wrist) [abcnews.go.com/Business/eligible-googles-700-million-settlement-payout/story?id=105770477]. They can farm absurd data and through data science - create algorithms that allow for price-fixing [www.propublica.org/article/doj-backs-tenants-price-fixing-case-big-landlords-real-estate-tech], but the damage will be done and dollars collected first. And GenAI: ooof. One can read articles on this or if one has access to company grapevines, there's questions and rumors of where can GenAI be placed to help reduce headcount. There's still so much mysticism about GenAI, and it is both incredibly capable and not as far as what people are proclaiming. And it's the employees who are going to take the hit in the long-term while the execs, C-Suites, Boards Members, and true shareholders get away with most of the riches. Even more prescient is the Purdue Pharma case where they knew Oxycontin was terrible, but they pushed it out there anyways for profit. But then the Pharmaceutical companies will eventually blow up and take all the employees out with it while the Sackler family gets to walk away with far more than they'll have to reimburse. Although that may no longer be true depending on what happens post the Supreme Court case - maybe they have to pay more, and maybe they'll be held further accountable. www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement-rcna139066

Fair point. Our team added in a bunch of net income trackers and articles. Thanks for the comment!

The companies themselves during their quarterly earnings calls and filings. What is your perspective on all this?

@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd sure, I mean I knew that. But I can't seem to find any source on that claim. I see plenty of headlines and people repeating it, but I actually read 10K SEC filings regularly for stock analysis and I don't see anything out of the ordinary. At least on the stocks I own.

Honestly, people always focus on the wrong factors. The ones who really drive wages down, and stifle innovation are the investors/shareholders. Not the small time ones but the big time ones who in return for that big stonka, and dividend yields of 1-3% will berate executives to get their way. Stock/company value must go up means your quarterly report cannot be in the red/negative. Sometimes there are problems like maintenance, employee retention, or logistical issues that need fixed. And more often then not the initial expenses will not make a quarterly report look good. Couple that with middle managers too afraid to tell their superiors any issues because making the quarter look good is just easier. This is what causes a toxic workplace filled with overworked and underpaid workers, and rampant dysfunctionality. This issue is pervasive in any company with investors. Which btw if you get a loan the bank is an investor too. They want their money back. Some industries get squeezed by others. For example restaurants are squeezed by excessive food costs. The food distributors hold back wages in that industry. Wing prices are double that of pre COVID. Well past inflation. I think it's disingenuous, and not well thought out to blame CEO and Upper Management for the low wages. Also consumer spending is down rn, because the economy is silently struggling. So for most companies. Record profits are not happening. Companies are predicting an economic downturn and adjusting accordingly. I'm so tired of one sided single facet arguments for complicated socio-economic issues. I'm tired of Meta-analysis that only examine one part of a problem. Which is kinda not a Meta-analysis. I'm so tired of feelings getting drug into economics. And now that I finally found a company to work for that doesn't think short term and respects their workers. I don't even have to pay attention to the wage crisis. But, I find it fun to anyways. Hope my blue collar input towards organizational structure contributed.

​@@danstevens64 - fair point. Our team added in a bunch of net income trackers and articles. What's your take from the info.?

Very happy for you. I hope you can have empathy for everyone else.

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd I wouldn't be in retail if I didn't have plenty of empathy. You know, too much empathy can be detrimental for you on your life's journey. It can be brutal for your love life.

@@jeffharris8166 Benefit of the doubt here, but thanks for worrying about our team's love life. Not sure why you'd want to do that, but thanks. I don't think working in retail is necessarily a barometer for having empathy, but I do believe working in retail is tough, so I feel for you. And I'm not sure how having too much empathy impacts love life. Would you explain some more? And would you explain how all this connects back to the topic regarding intergenerational wealth transfer being less impactful for most Americans?

Yeah, I was surprised about that too. Adding text, pictures, and charts would probably help drive more views. Especially as it's easier to absorb and understand data-rich content if it's presented in a manner simultaneously heard and seen.

Thanks for the feedback! We're working on it slowly, and we're focused on just getting information out while working our jobs as well.

@@spliffbooth Thanks for the feedback! We're likely to keep the videos as is just based on our own time, but part of what we're building toward is getting the information onto some articles as well. Our older videos had more information with charts / graphs / etc., but it takes far more time than what our team has the capacity for. We'd love to get there though!

Thank you!

Yes. They work with private bankers to secure better interest loans. They may be higher than they were previously, but we can do some math. If we''re putting in 200,000, but instead of making $150,000 a year, we're making $100,000 a year. It still takes two years. By year 3, we'll be making money. And in a few years when interest rates are lower, we'll refinance again to a lower rate. And in the meantime, instead of having $2,000,000 locked up. I only have $200,000 locked up. I can go use that $1,800,000 for something else. They all play on risk. But here's the kicker with taxes - if you lose money, you can write off for multiple years against your income. Knowing and having great CPAs is something that the rich can afford.

Thank you!

In the spirit of discourse, what do you mean import more of the third world? The people / the values / the culture / the goods / all of the above?

If sarcasm, we're really glad you were able to retire. We hope something is done for the 50% like better policy. And it'll affect the next generations too. So even if it's great for you, there are many who are in trouble.

It doesn't help that very loud voices have said this. And because it's become part of the vernacular, the rest start mimicking. Generational feuds aren't great, and so many people buy into them. Hopefully, the older generation can pass along better ideas to the newer generations, and the newer generations can take it even further. But yes, for all those who are cruel, good luck to them 'cause they're going to need it. Or they'll vote to get themselves more social security. :X

It's always tough 'cause our team's met many of the Silent Generation, boomers, and Gen X who aren't cruel. But the loud, cruel voices continue to ring out. For those who are cruel and telling people to stop spending frivolously, I hope they have the opportunity to grow. But for sure. They should check themselves before they speak. :)

Thanks for watching a lot of our videos. I think you're misinterpreting whether willfully or not. But humans need some form of governing body to help. Whether that's government or corporations, they should be opposing to help create a better society for us all.

Fault relies within both. Rich happen to pick those in governmental power and encourage policies through lobbying to better suit their organizations needs.

Wealthy are your government.

Also - banks create more money too. And the wealthy have a very heavy hand in our government whether they themselves are wealthy or from old money families, or they're connected from donations and lobbying. It's purposefully murky. But the wealth inequality has grown over the last 40 years because of the policies in place by the government, wealthy, and corporations.

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd Both fractional reserve and central banking are fraudulent and enabled by the government you love so much. We need a free market with full reserve banking.

​ @RaRd8z In all earnestness, please explain how you view a laissez-faire capitalism solving this. You commented elsewhere that you want to protect those in the lower tiers, but historically, anytime there's been free markets, the financial gap is even larger. The Gilded Age and the Industrial Revolution led to great economic boons in the US at the cost of the people at the bottom. Greater poverty compared to now. We'd love to see how that would fix it. Full reserve banking - we're fans of timed accounts like CDs, but we're uncertain be way less debt flowing and less predatory practices. It also seems like this would a government intervention, right? It's not really a free market, or are you arguing that there should be minimal interventions. And how would you see this working? In another post, you qualified that deflation would help. Again in all earnestness. Deflation typically lowers wages and earnings, which still keeps everything at the same cost. And for those who are rich, they don't even have to spend or invest now. The value of their weatlh increases by doing nothing. Love to know your counter arguments. From our view, you're requesting a financial reset. Which is honestly great in our opinion, but how would one practically apply something of this capacity. In your statements about loving big government, we don't. But we'd rather trust in big government than in big business, although in the US, there's far too much lobbying.

Such a fascinating character, but hopefully no one emulates him.

All costs catch up eventually as inflation continues to increase. Raising the minimum wage increases purchasing for the most destitute who spend the largest percentage of their income on general living. If we're looking at the middle class growing in size, so there's more middle class, sure. The CA $20 minimum wage isn't a one stop solution to solve everything, but those in need need it already, and they're likely to spend it immediately, which will go back into the economy. Ultimately, the rich need to pay their taxes instead of finding ways to not. And when I mean the rich, I mean .1% and richer. The 1% aren't even the big problem as the gap between their wealth and the .1% is absurd. But let's be clear as well that we're already at a larger middle class. The middle class has lost a lot of its purchasing power as the wealth gap between the upper class and middle class continues to grow since the 1980s with tax breaks for the rich, and the lower class taking on the brunt of it. Please feel free to qualify the steps you see toward a reduction in spending power or counter any of my points if you want to discuss.

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd If wages rise, prices rise by the amount needed to cover increased labor cost, the relative purchasing power never changes. To address the issue, we need constraint the ratios not set a “minimum” that change that dynamic. Instead of corporate tax, take the rate to zero but require mandatory profit sharing by that rate. Increased take home pay will go into the economy to stimulate growth. If a company makes profit, all should share in it. Constrain the maximum disparity between pay at the top and the pay for those doing the work. I worked as a mechanic on flat rate, my wage was a percentage of the shop rate. The owners pay was also (granted higher) a percentage. If the shop rate went to adjust for inflation or if the owner wanted increased income or for any reason, my wages went up with it, this prevented a company from increasing their profits at the expense of their employees not seeing wage growth. This constrained the owners pay in a fixed ratio to their employees pay. I worked for another company that paid quarterly bonuses based on profits. Employees were motivated to do good work, be productive and internally monitor cost and waste. We need to constrain the ratio and create forces where all are motivated to look out for the well being of others

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd You people support endless money printing and then complain when the cost of living goes up lmao

Hooray for human-corporations that can live for far longer than a human could... ... ... I don't know about them being taxed identically, but that would be an interesting model to create. There'd be less write-offs, but I'm not sure what a thoughtful % would be at that point (could be more than 35-38% like 52% from 1952-1963)! Here's the history of corporate tax brackets, which is so interesting to see the changes: taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/ Capital Gains tax being different really messes it all up too. Thanks investment human-corporations!

​@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9ndI'm with you with higher corporate tax rates, I was more being glib about the fact that American corporations are "people" only when convenient for them

Thank you! We have a threads account, but we haven't logged in in a while. We'll be creating more of a social media presence going forward, but the focus is on trying to make content on the interwoven dependencies of finances, humanity, and philosophy.

Thank you!

Sure. We have to compare the price of all goods at that point too. Cost of living was lower holistically even if individual items may be comparatively higher. And now many of these are just the jobs that people get stuck in. It's not first jobs like you mentioned. And even jobs like EMT make minimum wage or barely above, so that doesn't make sense either. Three things on: $150K net on millions invested. 1. You used the word invested. So if they sell the business later, are they likely to recoup all the costs and also make profit? It is an investment and it's generating income for them. So that seems like a sweet deal. If I put in $1.5M and I'm getting in $150,000 a year, I'm getting 10%. That beats S&P and inflation. And then I sell and get it all back and more? Amazing deal, no? 2. Also on the corporations if they're taking $405,000, wouldn't they be able to take less? 3. Debt is how the US works in general right? But debt works definitely for the upper upper class vs everyone else as they get different rates and get many things gifted for the mere presence of the elite at an establishment.

Yep. Eventually, and the cycle restarts. But raising the glass floor will lead to raising the glass ceiling.

The minimum wage just makes people who don't generate value above the minimum wage unemployed. It overwhelmingly hurts the poor. It should be abolished.

Sure. There has to be a better system. What do you think it is? If you answer free market, in advance, we'll just qualify that free markets usually lead to regulation afterwards because people die. Currently looking at some data from: www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wages en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm If we compare minimum wage with unemployment and poverty, there's really no strong correlation. DC has the highest minimum wage, the most unemployment, but it's lower in poverty than New Mexico, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississipi. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas all have the federal minimum wage, and they're unemployment ranges from low to high. New Mexico is in the middle of the minimum wage, middle for unemployment, and one of the top on poverty. Washington state has the second highest minimum wage, but it's poverty is in the bottom 20%. Same with New Jersey and Connecticut being in the higher minimum, wage but lower poverty. We don't think the minimum wage disproportionately affects the poor. It may affect the poorest of the poor, and there needs to be some policy to help them with that. Whether it's helping them acquire a minimum wage job, UBI, or something else.

Our VO team member is happy to be compared to a high efficiency LLM with text-to-speech algorithms. Beep Boop 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100001 01100100

Thanks!

But it is all of our concern. Corporations keep reducing their taxes through lobbying. They hold what they owe from the rest of the world outside of the US, and so it doesn't come back. Here's historical corporate tax rates. taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/ They lobby to screw the general popultaion over. And also, we can all be "shareholders" (more on that to come). So yes, I care about what they spend. Saying you won't spend your money there is again pushing it onto the whole population to act. In order for any of us to make a dent, so many people would need to boycott. And again, that goes awy so quickly if they increase prices for those remaining. Their not charities, but they seem to take a lot of charity from the government and all of us. "So yes, while corporations could pay their employees more, they are under no legal obligation to do so." -- And the point is they are under the legal obligation now to do so. "Likewise, employees are under no legal obligation to stay at the corporation if they feel they are not being compensated properly." -- Except even McDonald's has stated that their employees need to work two jobs because they pay too low, the minimum wage is too low, and there's the significant likelihood that McDonald's doesn't want full-time employees, putting the costs of healthcare and other benefits on the general populace. Why do you feel this way? Why do you want to defend corporations so much? Are you a multi-million dollar shareholder? Do you make millions of dollars a year at your position?

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd As a minimum wage worker, thank you for being an intelligent voice for us brother, it means a lot to me

@@The_Essential_Review Thanks! I don't know why people want to protect corporations over people but to each their own.

@@The_Essential_Review The guy is advocating that you lose your job.

​@@RaRd8z it seems we've certainly hit a chord with you. What's going on in your life that you feel so compelled? Are you a minimum wage worker? Are you the rich? What's your plan? How would you solve it?

Thanks for letting me know! We'll figure something out for future videos.

1. Applying it globally, sure. It doesn't work. But this was also just California, so if you want to increase scope, go for it! I do believe other countries need to make it better, but then we'd need some form of larger global governmental body to help enforce that. Which would create jobs, so let's do it! Love it! 10/10. 2. Would you qualify that the businesses who are blaming the government and also the consumers, do they have 3 fingers pointing back at them too?

thats great. you do whatever you want to do in Australia and do your socalist BS over there. and we have our own system over here

I generally agree! There's so many different factors between each country's economy. Even the different states in the US are so different with also the federal laws impacting how they come to be. The pension plan concept is amazing because US companies used to offer pensions, but they got moved to the "401k" plan because putting the onus onto the general population is the modus operandi of the US. Rather than holding corporations accountable, they make the 99% fight among one another while the .1% and .01% walk away with it all.

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd I understand. What Americans get as benefits from companies etc are considered rights in Australia they are mandatory non negotiable and employees are considered creditors when a company becomes bankrupt and entitled to a portion of assets to cover lost incomes and pension payments - people vote companies do not and election costs are paid for by the federal government to stop influencing from corporations and lobbying in politics in Australia is illegal. All these factors give benefit to the people who own the country not corporations - corporations last on average 32 years an individual lives up to 88 years so the investment is in people

That's remarkable. Every time I learn more about other countries elections and economic systems, it's absolutely fascinating where there are areas that are better (and also worse). I think it's amazing that there's reduced lobbying in Australia and generally a hands-on approach to caring for the population.

That's awesome--what's the homeless situation like there? I always wonder how minimum wage affects homelessness.

Companies can be real jerks. And it's so great to see when CEOs also take minimum wage but have their companies pay for everything as well as have amazing stock packages / golden parachutes.

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd ua-cam.com/video/wUjjHQix0q4/v-deo.html

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd Okay so divide all of the CEO's salary and bonuses and give it to all of the workers, it would amount to an extra 50 cents.

Thanks! We used footage that we recorded or created in the past, but with our schedules, this is likely how we'll be moving forward for a bit! I appreciate the advice!

Captions also, please!

Inflation happens regardless. And all presidents kinda blow chunks. Trump reduced the international tax from companies coming in. All presidents continue to keep the tax law absurdly hard to follow even though they all promise to change it. But Nvidia went to a ridiculous amount because of AI, and all these companies investing into it. Yes, more money made it easier. But all the companies buying in Nvidia or using Nvidia and AI are doing layoffs right now because they want AI to replace a large portion of their processes. Not all of this is the whole picture, but all good. If you look at the US, median income doesn't outpace inflation. So there's a lot to unpack from it, but corporate taxes have gone down over time. So it's not like they reinvested into the American population despite arguing for trickle down economics and other policies of that sort.

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd of course it doesn’t because you people keep printing too much money. You think the market just magically created 12 trillion out of nowhere? It’s all on Biden and Powell that inflation is rampant. There are many years in the past where wages outpaced inflation. Stop printing money and stop giving it to illegals, criminals, and foreign countries. Wow is that so much to ask. For all that capitalism you despise you sure can’t admit that inflation is caused by big government

Thank you I think!

Thanks for the knowledge! It's a great phrase!

Oh. And Specter Knight is rad.

Thanks for sharing. I don't think I said barbaric at all, and it's definitely not barbarism. But it is antiquated and can lead to more revenge. I agree there's nuance to understanding how it is, and that the intention is to reduce harm in general. It hopes to set limits, so yes - if someone loses an eye in a fight, they don't go and burn down someone's house. But if you can take out someone's eye, if there's no evidence that this was "justice," then you now have someone saying that you took out their eye and they get to take out your eye. There's plenty of conditions to consider around it. It's a matter of scope. It's a matter of perspective. So I'm glad you find it so simple, but I find that laws and emotions aren't very simple at all.

Lol. You gotta include friends too. And then, it'll eventually come back to you where you have to get revenge on yourself for all the revenge you've done. Mobius Revenge.

Thank you for the fascinating read, and I would love to see and read your sources for the statistics! I absolutely agree that we as society have uplifted people who have made bad choices, and instead of holding them accountable, we've let them slide. And that teaches ourselves and future generations that this behavior is okay. There are areas where I don't agree with, but to each their own. I believe that justice is also reactionary, and it is also emotional as there are many situations where there is no justice unless justice was made far-far-far up the chain, and then it's no longer relevant. I don't believe revenge is just from/for violent people. There are plenty of people in www.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/ who aren't violent, but their actions are a form of revenge. And I think everyone has narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies, which means that we all have opportunities. And we will all mess up because no one's perfect. But I do also agree and hope that with better nurturing, we can help prevent many of these behaviors.

One for the other, and one for yourself. I find it interesting that in researching that quote, it's either attributed to Confucius or it's a Japanese proverb. Maybe it's lost to history or it's multiple discovery? Thanks for sharing!

Thank you for your comment! Some facts and some opinions!

Is the reason to pick Einstein because he's a zombie? E=McBrains

Sure. I'd love to understand how that measure is done, and how that measure itself would not be influenced by cognitive biases and fallacies.

Thanks for your opinion! Have a wonderful day!

Sure. I can understand your perspective that others claiming their logic is objective is wrong, and that doesn't refute objective logic as that happens to be a similar argument you're making currently. What is an example of objective logic? And what makes it objective or logical that's not relative to your context and belief system?

@@TwoMinuteTalks-wt9nd 1 + 1 = 2

​@@blackoutninja depends on how you view math whether Platonism, Formalism, Intuitionism, etc. etc. 1+1 can equal 2 in some philosophies, but not in all because some of them view it as abstract instead of objective. Example: if you take 1 orange and add 1 orange, you get 2 oranges. But are they exactly the same? Nope. But there are 2 oranges. Unless it's actually an orange and a tangerine. You still have 2 fruits, but it winds up being definition. Another example: If you take 1 proton + 1 electron, you get still 1 proton and 1 electron in one definition, 2 subatomic particles, but 0 charge. So it becomes quite relative to what you're looking at.

Also depends on what your system is: In binary, 1+1=1. In base 2, 1+1=10 (but it's representative of 2). Etc.

Thanks for your opinion. Feel free to refute anything.