Why Trickle Up Is More Plausible Than Trickle Down

Why Trickle Up Is More Plausible Than Trickle Down

Debates about the systems of economic growth rage on, but the answer lies in what we have not yet considered.
1522
views

In the current mode of economic thinking, the major debate is between trickle up economics and trickle down economics, whose outcome will shape how our economy develops in the near future and may even address the underlying problems of the American economy--I alluded to in my 2017 economic outlook--such as diversification of labor and the growing crisis of inequality and the savings multiplier.

To begin, let's first take a look at what these two modes of economic thinking entail. Trickle-down economics, otherwise known as supply-side economics, is most commonly attributed to Reaganomics. The basic principle behind this system is that more money and tax breaks are given to the rich and therefore the money will flow to the bottom echelons of the economy. In theory, this sounds plausible given the way market forces operate and the nature of capitalism itself. History has, however, shown that its implementation has been flawed. More money went to the top echelons and stayed there rather than trickling to the bottom. This is primarily because of something called the propensity to save and consume. In economics, the propensity to consume is the amount of a person's disposable income they are likely to spend in the economy. Usually an average is taken, but there is a stark difference between that of the wealthiest Americans and the average of those at lower income levels. Those with less disposable income have a higher propensity to consume or spend and a lower propensity to save, meaning that the spending multiplier, or rather the rate at which the economy grows via spending, is greater in the lower levels than the higher incomes. Those who receive higher incomes save a greater portion of their income than spend it.

On the contrary, trickle-up economics is based on the principle of giving more tax breaks and compensation to those at the lower income levels, thereby bringing an increase in income to the upper levels as well. This would be in the form of subsidies, tax credits for small businesses and other means. It would also promote local job growth and development and reduce the dependence on large-scale corporations to create jobs. It might even reduce the influence of large-scale corporations in Congress by reducing their importance in the economy. Those at the top, however, do not lose in real economic terms while those at the bottom simultaneously gain and spend. More money will be spent and put into circulation, thereby greatly increasing the spending multiplier effect. This method would also significantly reduce inequality in the US, which would increase economic growth both on paper and off the record.

Although trickle-down economics would work well with proper implementation, our current legal system is ill-equipped to handle it. Trickle-down economics failed because of the propensity of those with higher incomes to save. In order for it to work; we, therefore, would need to legally compel the wealthy to spend more on investment and the lower classes. Instead of facing that legal battle, it would be more efficient to focus on trickle-up economics because the market forces governing propensity to spend and consume are much easier to work with at that level.

Cover Image Credit: www.fee.org

Popular Right Now

Stop Saying 'Love Is Love' And Then Shame Me For Dating A Republican

"How can you date a Republican?!" Quite easily, actually.

15007
views

"And love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love." Other theater geeks like me probably also remember this quote from Lin-Manuel Miranda's Tony acceptance speech in 2016. Now, thanks to Lin-Manuel and his talent for catchy phrases, every time someone says "love is love," all I can think of is Lin-Manuel's emphatic cry for equality.

This cry is one that I support wholeheartedly. I think that you should be allowed to love whomever you choose and that you should do so without fear of hatred or scrutiny. If you are a guy who loves guys, great. If you are a girl who loves girls, great. If you are a girl who loves guys and girls, great. You are born a certain way with certain sexual preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, if you believe that people should be free to love anyone they choose, then, honey, you better start looking past gender.

Let me tell you a little story.

Recently, I had a conversation with one of my closest friends about my boyfriend of almost 11 months. Somehow (and I'm shocked that this hadn't come up before), my boyfriend's political preferences became the topic of conversation.

The conversation went something like this:

"Wait, so is Tom a Democrat or Republican?"

"He's a Republican."

"WHAT?! Are you serious?"

"Yep."

"How can you date a Republican?"

After that, I basically went on a five-minute rant about how at the end of the day, his political preferences only make up a small fraction of who he is as a person and that I am not so shallow that I would be deterred by something this trivial.

At our cores, Tom and I value the exact same things: compassion, knowledge, kindness, dedication, honesty, respect, and above all else, love. Tom loves me unconditionally and I give him that same love in return; honestly, what else could I ask for?

Tom and I do get in some political arguments from time to time, but we also agree on those issues that are most important to me: female reproductive rights, marriage equality, and support for survivors of sexual assault. All of those things are non-negotiables for me, and Tom understands that and possesses his own list of non-negotiables.

Before you ask, yep, he voted for Trump. Did that take me back at first? Yes. Did I struggle to understand what would compel a person to vote for him? Absolutely. Did that thought kind of terrify me at first? Hell yes.

But you know what? After I just sat and listened to Tom's reasoning as to why he voted for him and watched him delve deep into Trump's policies, I could understand why some would vote for him. And to tell the truth, once I fell in love with Tom, none of that mattered anymore. And what is sad is that people so often fall so deep into their own echo chambers nowadays, that they wouldn't even give someone with different beliefs their ear. Well, I'm damn glad I did because Tom is the most amazing person I've ever met and I fall more in love with him every day.

So to tie this all together with a pretty little bow, if you're going to go around and preach that love is love and that everyone should be free to love whom they choose, then that shouldn't change for me. Maybe you're a Democrat that would never date a Republican or maybe you're a Republican who would never date a Democrat; that's your choice. But we don't get to choose who we fall in love with (much to the dismay of my liberal family and friends). Just keep an open mind and who knows? Maybe you could find some absolutely epic happiness.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

You Might Love Being A CNA, But That Compassion Won't Show Up In Your Paycheck

A big heart means nothing if you're struggling to make ends meet.

146
views

To the ones who love their job and doing what they do but is on the fence about leaving their job, I was in your shoes, too.

I knew when I started my job as a CNA (certified nurse's assistant), it would be a hard one. If you know anything about the job duties of a CNA, you'll quickly understand that for all of the work that we do, we're ridiculously underpaid and overworked.

I'll start by saying I loved my job.

Though the days were long and I was on my feet more than I sat down during the day, I loved being able to help people. I loved being able to make people smile and hear a simple "Thank you" and sometimes, that's all I needed for my day to do a full 360. I could be having the worst day in the world and covered in random bodily fluids, but walking out of a resident's room and hearing them quietly tell you that they appreciate what you've done for them, that's truly the one thing that can change my entire day, knowing that my hard work doesn't go unnoticed.

But compassion doesn't pay mine or anyone else's bills.

Someone could love their job and be happy to be there every single shift, but when you're overworked but so underpaid, your compassion may not leave, but your bills begin to pile up and you're stuck with not knowing what to do. If you're anything like me, you'll be so conflicted about leaving your job to find something better financially, but you know that you're leaving a job you enjoy doing and you may not find that enjoyment elsewhere.

At the end of the day, you have to realize what would be best for you. You can be the most compassionate about your job, but that compassion means nothing if you're struggling to make ends meet. I know from experience that if you're in a field like mine, it's hard to leave because you know people will need you, but you have to do what's best for you and only you.

Compassion doesn't pay the bills.

You may have to leave a job that you love, but there are so many opportunities out there and, who knows, you might find one you enjoy just as equally.

Related Content

Facebook Comments