He wasn't arguing for income redistribution. He was making the same argument that noted socialist Henry Ford made when providing decent wages to his employees: if the middle class can't afford to pay for cars, we are all screwed.
Share Our Wealth Society
Every Man a Pauper.
A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.
There is one rule for industrialists and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
Ford paid employees more to reduce turnover, not so they could afford his cars.
I have learned through the years a good deal about wages. I believe in the first place that, all other considerations aside, our own sales depend in a measure upon the wages we pay. If we can distribute high wages, then that money is going to be spent and it will serve to make storekeepers and distributors and manufacturers and workers in other lines more prosperous and their prosperity will be reflected in our sales. Country-wide high wages spell country-wide prosperity…
The analogy is Obama's "spreading the wealth" support of progressive taxation isn't motivated by socialism, but rather Ford's philosophy of the importance of a healthy middle class.
Is there anything that Henry ford didn't say at one time or another?
Bob from Ohio, that sounds like the guy Hannity had on to attack Obama.
Is this what you Obama supporters really want? I think that anyone with any sense would realize we need more investment and less consumption. The US economy needs to shift towards capital investment.
Michael Smerconish is voting for Obama.[?]
DanO29, the Chicago Tribune also endorsed Obama. In its 161 year history the Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat. Until now.
Also, 100,000 America hating socialists show up at an Obama rally in St. Louis.
Mmm, yes, and we're at the end of the longest stretch of steady economic growth in a generation. Coincidence? Would you like to find out? I hope you're young, then, and in good health.
Henry Ford made no such argument; it makes no sense to claim that he did. (Yes, I know what they teach in 10th grade social studies.) How can giving money to people so they give some of it back to you be a good deal? Ford paid employees more to reduce turnover, not so they could afford his cars.
The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.
The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad.
Just as the eight hour day opened our way to prosperity, so the five day week will open our way to a still greater prosperity.
So...you're arguing that the benefits of technology have not flowed equally to all segments of the population?
At a time when the percentage of GDP collected in taxes is the lowest in a generation,
Mmm, yes, and we're at the end of the longest stretch of steady economic growth in a generation.