Former Patriot Brandon Browner Arrested for Kidnapping, Four Other Charges

[The Brandon Five]

Do you even have any idea how common or widespread this is?
Do you seriously believe that a corporation, is going to spend its money lobbying to put more people in jail so they could have a couple more inmates on the payroll? And if that were the case, that they would have any standing whatsoever to succeed?

It’s not an open question it’s a delusional question.

In a world where people actually sell their own children I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt where lots of money is involved.

 

[Ring 6]

Corporate income taxes are not a large source of revenue.

U.S. Corporate Tax Revenue is Low Because High Taxes Have Shrunk the Corporate Sector - Tax Foundation

Corporations saving money is not the issue. The issue is when those savings come at the expense of local, state or federal government (and in this case on the backs of people who are incarcerated).

Did you even read the article you quoted?

You do understand that corporate revenue creates jobs, salaries which are taxed, dividends which are taxed and pass through income which is taxed and your article ignores.

If you want to argue that Corp x having 100 mill in revenue and 50 mil in expenses is worse for the economy than having 70 mill in revenue and 60 mill in expenses I guess you can but you would have a hard time finding any economist in the world to agree with you.

“On the backs of people who are incarcerated”? Are you kidding me?
So criminals working while incarcerated to learn job skills and rehabilitate is now offensive?

 

[Ring 6]

In a world where people actually sell their own children I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt where lots of money is involved.

Then we have reached the point where nothing you say can be taken seriously.
You have reached the point of arguing that you sad a bad thing happen once so any bad thing you can conjure up is probably true.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Did you even read the article you quoted?

You do understand that corporate revenue creates jobs, salaries which are taxed, dividends which are taxed and pass through income which is taxed and your article ignores.

If you want to argue that Corp x having 100 mill in revenue and 50 mil in expenses is worse for the economy than having 70 mill in revenue and 60 mill in expenses I guess you can but you would have a hard time finding any economist in the world to agree with you.

Well, if you stop moving the goalposts and let me know what specific argument you are making about the glories of multi-national public corporations I'll be happy to discuss it. If the 60 million in expenses represent higher wages I'd say that was maybe better. Wages as a share of GDP are down, and I am not sure that is a good thing.



Source: Compensation of Employees: Wages and Salary Accruals/Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed

If the lower revenues reflect lower prices, I'd say that is a positive for the general public as well. I guess I am less concerned with the needs and worries of the people at the top of the economic food chain than you are.

“On the backs of people who are incarcerated”? Are you kidding me?
So criminals working while incarcerated to learn job skills and rehabilitate is now offensive?

If the state was keeping part of their wages I would be fine with it. I am concerned with the subsidy being provided through the use of that labor.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Then we have reached the point where nothing you say can be taken seriously.
You have reached the point of arguing that you sad a bad thing happen once so any bad thing you can conjure up is probably true.

Happen once? That happens more than you apparently know. It was in today's news.

Mom offered sex with 2-year-old daughter for $1,200. She was talking to a Texas cop

I am talking about human nature. You have boundless faith in it (despite your earlier contention about this being a nation over-run with criminal behavior, apparently).

 

[lancerman]

What the **** does this have to do with the Patriots?

 

[denverpatsfan]

Coulda used him in the Super Bowl...

 

[The Brandon Five]

What the **** does this have to do with the Patriots?

 

[Ring 6]

Well, if you stop moving the goalposts and let me know what specific argument you are making about the glories of multi-national public corporations I'll be happy to discuss it. If the 60 million in expenses represent higher wages I'd say that was maybe better. Wages as a share of GDP are down, and I am not sure that is a good thing.



Source: Compensation of Employees: Wages and Salary Accruals/Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed

If the lower revenues reflect lower prices, I'd say that is a positive for the general public as well. I guess I am less concerned with the needs and worries of the people at the top of the economic food chain than you are.

Talk about moving the goalposts.

We are talking about the effect of cheap, inmate labor on the production costs, and ultimately sales and revenue of a corporation.
There is no economic model where lower revenue and higher expenses equals lower prices or better wages.

That’s just not how economics work.

If the state was keeping part of their wages I would be fine with it. I am concerned with the subsidy being provided through the use of that labor.

Do you know they are not? I believe that they do.
Subsidy?
Why would it concern you that American corporations have the ability to reduce costs by having inmates provide labor at a lower cost?
How is this possibly a negative thing?
If the government is able to provide business with a means to produce goods cheaper its governments obligation to do so.


I think your problem here is that you look through a lens that everything that happens must be corrupt therefore everything is bad.

That’s not real life.
No one loses in this scenario except possibly the competing businesses that aren’t smart enough to take advantage of it, but that literally is the American way, competition wins out.

 

[Ring 6]

Happen once? That happens more than you apparently know. It was in today's news.

Mom offered sex with 2-year-old daughter for $1,200. She was talking to a Texas cop

I am talking about human nature. You have boundless faith in it (despite your earlier contention about this being a nation over-run with criminal behavior, apparently).

How does that have anything to do with economic principles?
Are you saying people suck so we should just shut down the world?

 

[The Brandon Five]

Talk about m

oving the goalposts.

We are talking about the effect of cheap, inmate labor on the production costs, and ultimately sales and revenue of a corporation.
There is no economic model where lower revenue and higher expenses equals lower prices or better wages.

That’s just not how economics work.

Explain how lower revenue means higher prices?

Higher expenses would be the result of better wages, not the other way around.

Do you know they are not? I believe that they do.

Well that was one of my original questions. Do we have any way of knowing?

Subsidy?
Why would it concern you that American corporations have the ability to reduce costs by having inmates provide labor at a lower cost?
How is this possibly a negative thing?
If the government is able to provide business with a means to produce goods cheaper its governments obligation to do so.


I think your problem here is that you look through a lens that everything that happens must be corrupt therefore everything is bad.

That’s not real life.
No one loses in this scenario except possibly the competing businesses that aren’t smart enough to take advantage of it, but that literally is the American way, competition wins out.

By "smart enough" do you mean politically connected? I'll have to look into the bidding process for this.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, if you stop moving the goalposts and let me know what specific argument you are making about the glories of multi-national public corporations I'll be happy to discuss it. If the 60 million in expenses represent higher wages I'd say that was maybe better. Wages as a share of GDP are down, and I am not sure that is a good thing.



Source: Compensation of Employees: Wages and Salary Accruals/Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed

If the lower revenues reflect lower prices, I'd say that is a positive for the general public as well. I guess I am less concerned with the needs and worries of the people at the top of the economic food chain than you are.




If the state was keeping part of their wages I would be fine with it. I am concerned with the subsidy being provided through the use of that labor.

Dude you have to stop citing articles you don’t even understand.

Please explain to me the relationship between salary and GDP and why a lower ratio exists today than in the past, what the causes are, and why it is a good or bad thing.

 

[The Brandon Five]

How does that have anything to do with economic principles?
Are you saying people suck so we should just shut down the world?

No, I am saying you don't rely on good behavior of others. You have checks and balances, proper incentives and a level playing field. You know, the kind of stuff you relish applying to the overwhelmingly lower class population that are in prison.

 

[Ring 6]

Explain how lower revenue means higher prices?

Higher expenses would be the result of better wages, not the other way around.

Huh? This is backward of every economic theory known to man.
Let me get this straight.
You think that a company struggling with revenue and profit will result in lower prices? So they can go out of business?


Companies with higher expenses can not afford to pay higher wages.

Well that was one of my original questions. Do we have any way of knowing?

This whole thing started with a poster claiming amazon uses inmates for labor.
I am discussing this based upon the stipulation it’s true.
Arguing that it’s bad because the state gets no money from it is just makimg something up

By "smart enough" do you mean politically connected? I'll have to look into the bidding process for this.

No I mean smart enough.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I am saying you don't rely on good behavior of others. You have checks and balances, proper incentives and a level playing field. You know, the kind of stuff you relish applying to the overwhelmingly lower class population that are in prison.

In a capitalist system you rely upon the profit seeking motivation of business.
Corporations succeed and thrive by seeking to maximize profit. They did if they do not.
The profit driving motivation of corporations provides jobs, goods and services, tax dollars, and stability to a country.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Dude you have to stop citing articles you don’t even understand.

Please explain to me the relationship between salary and GDP and why a lower ratio exists today than in the past, what the causes are, and why it is a good or bad thing.

I'd say that labor arbitrage available through the "flat-world" is part of it. From the IMF:

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2017/wp17169.ashx

The evidence also suggests that the impact of technological advancement and participation in global value chains on the aggregate labor share in advanced economies comes through a reduced share for middle-skilled labor. This finding corroborates existing evidence for advanced economies that automation and import competition and offshoring have led to long-term losses in middle-skill occupations and displacement of middle-skilled workers to lower-wage occupations.

I think a lower wage share means less dollars that will be spent. I work in the insurance industry. We have sent millions of jobs to India. Most of the large carries in the U.S. do not write business in India. At a certain point you need to worry about who is going to be able to purchase your goods and services. Meanwhile we have trained our potential global competitors.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Huh? This is backward of every economic theory known to man.
Let me get this straight.
You think that a company struggling with revenue and profit will result in lower prices? So they can go out of business?


Companies with higher expenses can not afford to pay higher wages.

No higher wages are a type of higher expense. They are not mutually exclusive. Wages are an expense.

And no, I am saying that lower revenues might be the result of lower prices, not the cause of them, so saying that lower revenues for a company are defacto bad for the country is not a given.

This whole thing started with a poster claiming amazon uses inmates for labor.
I am discussing this based upon the stipulation it’s true.
Arguing that it’s bad because the state gets no money from it is just makimg something up

It was a question, not a statement.

No I mean smart enough.

Lulz. Maybe "unprincipled enough"?

Here is a good discussion from a right-leaning publication that sheds some light on this. It appears that the "Percy Amendment" is what started this practice. The prisons do deduct expenses. The companies pay the prevailing minimum wage. The big issue is that they do not pay payroll taxes on those wages because it is not technically "employment", and then there is Kontra's point that minimum wage for things like programming takes jobs away from people in the non-incarcerated American community.

Prison Labor: Laws & Wages Make It Close to Slavery | National Review

 

[fnordcircle]

Well, if you stop moving the goalposts

That's every conversation with Andy.

 

[Ring 6]

I'd say that labor arbitrage available through the "flat-world" is part of it. From the IMF:

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2017/wp17169.ashx

You just tried to answer a question about salary to gdp with an article about wages to global income.
But nice job pull a big word phrase out of a 70 page economic paper that you dont understand.

I think a lower wage share means less dollars that will be spent. I work in the insurance industry. We have sent millions of jobs to India. Most of the large carries in the U.S. do not write business in India. At a certain point you need to worry about who is going to be able to purchase your goods and services. Meanwhile we have trained our potential global competitors.

What does this have to do with your claim that a company with less revenue and more expense is paying higher salaries than if it had more revenue and lower expense?

 

[The Brandon Five]

You just tried to answer a question about salary to gdp with an article about wages to global income.
But nice job pull a big word phrase out of a 70 page economic paper that you dont understand.

Got it national/global income are unrelated to GDP. You're an economic genius.

What does this have to do with your claim that a company with less revenue and more expense is paying higher salaries than if it had more revenue and lower expense?

That wasn't my claim. Your claim was that higher revenues and lower expenses for a corporation were always good for the country. I was merely stating what should be obvious: that it depends on why either of those things occurred.