Anonymous full.metal.everything. 3w

This isn't trickle down economics though

-7

Anonymous #7 3w

This is literally trickle down economics looked at from the other direction. Trickle-down is “if we let the rich be rich, they’ll eventually pay us better” and this is “if we don’t let the rich do their thing, they won’t pay us.” Broken down to symbolic logic, it’s “A -> B” vs. “~A -> ~B” which are two sides of the same exact conditional.

8

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

Same policy different logic behind it. It's clearly not trickle down

-8

Anonymous #7 3w

If the logic is only different by virtue of adding negations to the premises, then it’s not actually different logic. It’s the implied other half of the same argument.

9

Anonymous #7 3w

cheese explained it pretty well. this is indeed trickle-down economics. playing word games won't change that fact.

8

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 3w

But imo I think the poor getting money is an essential element of trickle down, which doesn't happen in this scenario

-1

Anonymous #7 3w

"what do you think will happen to our jobs if they get tired of this bs and leave" implies that wealth trickles down from the top in the form of jobs the wealthy provide. things need not be said explicitly to still apply, lad.

1