I'm not an economist, so what I have to say about this lie is based upon logic, common sense, and my own personal experience.
At least you won't have to read a lot of economic jargon with words and graphs that most people don't understand.
I'll first begin by asking -- does trickle up economics work? If you believe that it does -- I would ask how does it work? Well -- after some research, I found this hard to understand explanation.
"Helping the poor directly (for example through micro-loans) will boost the productivity of society as a whole and thus those benefits will, in effect, "trickle up" to benefits for the wealthy.
" If this means that when the workers own and/or control a business, they will become more productive, I would ask how did the business get started in the first place? I would then ask how does the worker group adapt to changing market conditions? If they start off making buggy whips, when and how do they react to change, and who gets laid off when the business can't make enough money to sustain the workforce? If the business began with government intervention -- like micro-loans -- wouldn't there need to be an entrepreneur (or group of entrepreneurs) who use the money to build some kind of business? If so -- what is their incentive to do so? Is it to make just enough money to feed and shelter their families, or will they want more? If they want more, they will in effect become greedy capitalists that pay their employees whatever they can get away with.
Well folks -- I'm sorry to say that it's the natural inclination of mankind to be greedy about making money.
But -- the good news is that because of competition their greed will generally be held in check -- unless, of course, they have an innovative new business that's protected by patents and they have a head start on their potential competition.
In which case they might become very wealthy -- like Bill Gates.
When considering competition -- the idea of paying a minimum wage with no benefits will eventually fail in a free capitalistic "trickle down" society.
The reason is obvious.
The natural inclination of mankind is to subvert an oppressive employer by slowing down and becoming less productive.
I've seen this personally -- in a non-free society -- when my company bought a manufacturing company in the Czech Republic after the fall of the former Soviet Union.
What we found was that it took four workers to do what one worker did in the United States.
Because of a communist mindset the workers had no incentive to be productive.
In fact their work was often shoddy and careless.
In a communist society, the worker knew that if he (or she) worked harder to get ahead, they would be scorned and ridiculed by their fellow workers and that getting ahead didn't result in higher wages and a better way of life.
Moreover, if the company failed, they would just get another job at slave labor wages.
By the way, I've seen this worker mindset personally in free society where workers, who are controlled by unions, tend to slow down to accommodate the least productive worker.
When I was a young engineer, I had a draftsman assigned to work on my project.
The draftsman was also a young and new employee who didn't know the draftsman's union work rules.
About halfway into my project I was baffled by a sudden slowdown in the draftsman's output.
Since I had developed a friendship with the draftsman I was able to get him to tell me why.
Although he was warned not to tell the engineers, he admitted to being coerced by his union leader.
In a nutshell this is why "trickle up" economics doesn't -- and never will -- work.
But, let's get back to the worker in a free society that may not be unionized.
When the above mentioned worker subverts the oppressive employer, the company will eventually go out of business.
The now unemployed worker then finds another job, at a higher wage, with a non-oppressive employer -- possibly the competitor of the failed company.
In this case, the non-oppressive employer generates a higher quality product at a faster rate because of providing their workforce with the incentive of a higher wage rate and benefits (possibly with a piece of the company's ownership through receipt of stock).
This tends to result in worker loyalty, a pride of workmanship, and a desire to make the company successful.
Moreover, when the customers from the failed company begin buying products from the non-oppressive company, it generally results in a demand for more products.
With increased demand the non-oppressive employer is able increase profits by operating more efficiently.
This then allows for increased wages and benefits.
If the employer doesn't increase wages and benefits, it will also fail because of free market competition.
And, this -- my friend -- is why "trickle down" economics works.
As another -- by the way -- comment, what I've just said is why the Soviet Union failed.
After observing this failure, the communist Chinese decided to take a different approach.
They introduced a communist form of "trickle down" capitalism, and their country is currently growing 10 times faster than the United States.
In my opinion, the communist aspect of this system will also fail in the long run.
The reason being that the natural human desire for freedom will eventually prevail.
Oppression generally stifles innovation, and it's innovation that keep's the engine of progress moving forward.