And when it's forced by the government. I don't believe @TheBeav815 is asking for government interference, but many people are.
OT: Union Pacific
- Thread starter chrsmneric
- Start date
Yup. I see a lot of people saying they're trying to make ends meet, but they drive/lease newer vehicles, have a cup of Starbucks in their hand, have the latest smart phone, their kids have the latest tablet, live in large homes with all new furniture.
Lots of stuff that can be cutback on in many "struggling" families.
When the government intervenes it never really ends well
Read this : www.businessinsider.com/ratio-of-ceo-to-average-worker-pay-2016-8
CEO to worker pay was very stable until Bill Clinton figured CEO's made too much money and attempted to curb the pay using tax code - this backfired as it only limited wages and not bonuses. So between 1994 and 2000 CEO wages skyrocketed, since then they have bounced up and down but at the same high level.
So this thought the government can fix this - is what caused the inequity to begin with
I imagine everyone thinks they earn every dime they make (not saying you don't). That doesn't mean everyone's right.
I don't think executives of giant corporations deserve huge bonuses for increasing profits by firing huge swathes of their employees.
It's a free market. It's like when someone says your house isn't worth $X. Well it is if someone buys it from me for that price. As I've said before, if you don't like your position, change it.
I missed this earlier. To the first point -- I'm still not saying they're greedy. I am saying that the gap in income between the highest and lowest earners is unnecessarily wide to an unhealthy degree.
To the second-- not everyone can own a business because businesses need employees to function. My argument is that if a given person didn't step up and create a business to fulfill a demand, someone else would. I don't see any reason to celebrate employers more than employees (neither can exist without the other), but we certainly do.
I'm happy with my position. I think it's unhealthy for any society to have some people living in squalor while others add to their yacht collection.
You can keep saying "this is how it is." I'm saying it doesn't have to be that way, and it ought not to.
The creed of the free market is that if there is a demand, someone will fulfill it, yes? From where comes this worry that if one company folds or is never created, another won't just replace it?
rainbows and unicorns.
people live in squalor in every society and in every economic theory.
I think the falsehood is the thinking that if some rich guy did not have as much money that automatically some poor person has more. It simply does not work that way a government can limit the top pay though regulation but that will most likely just mean the poor person has less also.
If that is not what people are thinking and they are just resentful that someone has more than they do even if it doesnt hurt them - then I say get over it and focus on your own stuff
And the creed of the free market is also that businesses try to purchase (demand) the labor (supply) they need at the lowest price possible.
I don't like this position. No one should. And you know what we do if we don't like our position- we change it! Huzzah, we're on the same side!
Good thing we can manipulate that lowest price possible, then.
The more money you give to poor people, the more they will spend. This drives the economy.
Policy should focus on driving money downward, rather than rewarding those that already have money. It will make its way back up regardless.
Too many variables to get into and this conversation is beginning to bore me. This thread was started because someone unfortunately lost his job. That sucks and I am hopeful that he gets a new job soon. But not everything in that situation is as it seems and we are only getting one side.
Later
Later
Why do you think that advocating for higher wages isn't an active choice to change one's position?
Again, it's mathematically impossible that the solution to a national problem is to tell individuals to "get a better job." The number of those jobs shrinks the higher you climb.
What's wrong with wanting a dude who works hard all week and does a good job but isn't "c-suite material" to see his wages keep pace with his output?
Edit: when the rules benefit oneself, it naturally becomes easy to perceive everything one has as "rightfully earned" and any changes to the rules as a "gift" to others.
You are right that people are paid what they earn or what they're worth -- within the system as it stands. That system can change, and a person's value can quickly change with it.
Last edited:
Do better than that, I've seen your posts, you're too smart to nitpick at one word.
What do you wanna call it when US productivity keeps going up but the wages for most of the workers making that happen are flat? Nobody is trying to outlaw wealth and nobody is trying to pass out free money.
What's so un-American about saying that it's bullshit to find excuses not to give raises to people who prove they've earned it through higher productivity?
Unless you're a multi-millionaire and/or you're paying yourself about 600 times what you pay your entry-level workers, I question whether you're qualified to take personal offense over comments about what the very top of wealthiest Americans earn and how compensate their employees or spend their lobbying dollars.
I find it very confusing how you only "earn" or "deserve" what you get paid once there are enough zeroes on your paycheck. We eat billions of dollars worth of fast food in this country, demand like crazy, but let the workers who are there serving the stuff 40 hours a week try to get a raise and people FREAK OUT like whatever they do for a living is so freaking noble.
Edit: when the rules benefit oneself, it naturally becomes easy to perceive everything one has as "rightfully earned" and any changes to the rules as a "gift" to others.
You are right that people are paid what they earn or what they're worth -- within the system as it stands. That system can change, and a person's value can quickly change with it.
Oh wow do you sit in front of a computer and make phone calls instead of standing in front of a grill and making food? Tell me more about how grueling it is.
I've waited tables and I've had office jobs. I worked much harder waiting tables and needed much more specialized skills, but I get paid more and am considered more prestigious for having this job. That's not rooted in anything logical, people just decided to feel that way.
To anything that you are not. If you're not dirt poor then don't try to tell me about being dirt poor. If you're not a minority don't tell me about being a minority. Right? Since I'm not one of the wealthiest I can't take offense.
Youre problem is you have a subconcious mentality that wealth is a finite number. It isnt.
Wealth can be and constantly is created. Its not scrooge mcduck stuffing it in his pillow case and hiding it.
And thank goodness people are buying yachts...many families depend on it.
And since you dont like a lot of have nots, i assume you are against socialism. Wowza, the pain that system has brought people over the years.
No economic system is perfect, but no system has brought more people out of poverty, created as much wealth, raised standard of living as high, and provided more opportunity than the low regulated free market system.
It seems like you're taking critique of a system which benefits you to some degree as a personal attack on you, your lifestyle, your accomplishments, or some combination. It is not.
This.
Taking more money in the form of taxation Will not make anyones lives better except the govt,
Stifling business doesnt help either.
Govt cannot create wealth..it either allows it or kills it. Theres no in between.
It's like this. I used to work in the banking industry. I earned my stripes and was promoted several times and as my responsibilities increased my wages increased. I had a teller who wanted to do nothing but be a teller. Nothing wrong with that, but it's an entry level position. The problem is that after 10 years she was pissed when she was maxed out on salary. Working hard isn't always enough. There is a reason some jobs pay more than others.
it seems like your solution to fixing the system is to limit earnings of some so that others can make more.
Should we limit the amount of education someone can obtain because others have only a 6th grade education?
Where does it end?
If it is not finite, why so much opposition to sharing it?
The Roman Empire created more wealth and raised the standard of living of its citizens more than any society that preceded it. Subsequent societies improved upon that further. We can always do better. This is the nature of progress.
Not apples to apples. Money is finite, treating people respectfully is not. So I can want everyone to be be nice to others regardless of what they look like and that doesn't cost me anything. If I defend a system that concentrates wealth at the top and causes the economy to sputter, that does harm me.
I'm not dirt poor, we're two-income middle class. But I'm a hell of a lot closer to poor than I am to rich. Not starving, on a good trajectory, but would be in deep shit if I had to miss two paychecks I'll put it to you that way. So I have a lot more skin in the game of the average worker than I do in sitting back and being like, "Eff 'em, I'm gonna inherit a pretty good chunk some day, not my problem."
You don't need to be in a particular tax bracket to believe it's good for consumer spending when most of the consumers have some money to spend. If you like rich guys, a thriving economy builds more rich guys than a stagnant one.
There isnt opposition to sharing unless that sharing is forced. If the market is forced into doing something unnatural, it wont react well. Wages an and do go up in certain industries. Funny that some of trumps policies that would likely lead to an increase in wages get a lot of pushback.
Yes, the free market is great at progress. Stop trying to stifle it.
Well I guess Im not even sure what you want to do. Whats your plan or idea?
1. Yes.
2. No. We should strive to educate everyone to the greatest degree feasible.
3. It ends when everyone has reached an acceptable standard of living.
Here we differ a bit.
1. You don't limit earnings, but you do scale a progressive tax system so that if you're paying yourself millions per year (in actual income, we're not talking about gross revenue on your small business) you pay tax like they paid tax back when we were "great again." Funny how nobody says Eisenhower was some total commie who ruined the country. That also has to cover loopholes, it can't just be an excuse to create some other clever tax shelter. We all benefit from all the safety, infrastructure, communications, etc. this nation provides. You shouldn't get a free pass once you clear a certain amount of money.
2. I think we agree here in that we should make it encouraged and easy to get quality education. For those who revile and shun education, I'm only to happy to tell them not to let the door hit them. It only takes one shithead to ruin class for 29 dedicated students.
3. That's not feasible. The end goal is to do the best you can for the largest number of people, but that number will never include everyone.
This, my friends, is the NCAA and it's member institutions.
Yet those same free market people on here will tell you that the athletes are getting plenty. Maybe the real issue is that Presidents, ADs, and coaches want to limit the earnings of some (athletes) so they (Presidents, ADs, and coaches) can make more.
Sharing has to be forced, because the natural tendency is to accumulate wealth, not share it.
Do you honestly believe that unbridled capitalism is the optimal end state for human society? That strikes me as highly improbable. There's a lot of time before the heat death of the universe for someone to devise something better.
That someone will be smarter than me. I'm left to daydreaming about rainbows and unicorns on a football forum.
1. I imagine many people would view limiting income and increasing taxes as one and the same.
2. Of course.
3. And so we'll keep working to improve. In reality, it will never end.
