Support NeoGAF

[longdi]

I was going through the Andy rubin news, the Buffet $b paper losses on Apple stocks. Still cant believe how much money are in the hands of those few guys! Do you need $90 million in your life time?

Makes me think minimum wages is a trap to placate the serfs. What we need is a max annual income cap. Any excess you earned should be taxed and redistribute into social spendings, build amnenties, shared insurance, supplement workers wages, research natural energy, put back into science exploration etc. Give people more time to enrich themselves instead of worrying when the next paycheck comes to foot the bill. Maybe with more financial security, we get less lunatics around. Those oil rich arabs have to stop their fuckery too, save the planet etc. I bet Andy re-invest those billions in some real estate, collect high rent and put more pressure on us serfs.

As smart as Andy is, i bet his underlyings are just as capable but get paid a pittance. So what if we pissed off the rich? Im sure there are just as many smart ones around, just they arent born in the right place. Imo the top 1% wealthy dont really mean they are the top 1% in moving us forward. Instead, i feel they prefer to hold us back. Goodness, while Earth resources are limited, modern science have shown how big the universe is, there is enough pie for everyone!
As bad as Trump is, Obama didnt bring wealth downstream. I guess why the right movement is happening around the global. But this wont change a thing, the cycle will continue, only festering hate and xenophobia against our own kind.

Again those filthy riches are just as human as us. They cant do much if we strip them off their excess. Their paid guns should realise they are just as fallable but they enjoy high tea while you fucked with your fellow serfs. Maybe thats why the race towards AI and robotics are for!

 

[Domisto]

Interesting third option is Maximum Ratio.

Basically the highest paid person only gets a max of X times the lowest paid person. Ben and Jerry's did it long ago before Ben left and they ditched it. Nice idea if it can be made to work. Avoids discouraging caps and raises the lowest along with the highest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_&_Jerry's#Wages
http://conceptualmath.org/philo/minwage.html

 

[JimiNutz]

Interesting third option is Maximum Ratio.

Basically the highest paid person only gets a max of X times the lowest paid person. Ben and Jerry's did it long ago before Ben left and they ditched it. Nice idea if it can be made to work. Avoids discouraging caps and raises the lowest along with the highest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_&_Jerry's#Wages
http://conceptualmath.org/philo/minwage.html

This seems like the best option. I wonder how difficult it is to make it work as it sounds like the ideal solution.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Honestly, I don't really like any of these ideas. I'd only want a minimum wage to ensure a floor to protect vulnerable people but that floor would need to be below the equilibrium point.

 

[Super Mario]

This is all a bunch of nonsense to get poor, uneducated victims to vote. For example, if you paid the CEOs of McDonalds and Walmart $0, the difference going to the employees would be negligible. Let alone the possibility that the corporation would probably go under without a solid CEO.

I used to believe the Liberal wage hype when I was a young, dumb, college kid. Then I learned how the world actually works. When you remove restrictive regulations, balance taxes/tariffs, job demand goes up. Wages go up. It's not so much that corporations "trickle down wealth when given extra wealth". It's that it makes more sense to employ people in America most of the time, when all of the unnecessary hurdles are removed. When demand gets high, companies start offering more to attract better candidates.

I've been hiring people for over 10 years now. We give more benefits and wages now. We are not the only company. No government involvement needed other than less government involvement.

 

[{insert code here}]

Both options are awful.

 

[NahaNago]

With a cap on how much you can make why would you bother growing your company after you've hit that cap.

Interesting third option is Maximum Ratio.

Basically the highest paid person only gets a max of X times the lowest paid person. Ben and Jerry's did it long ago before Ben left and they ditched it. Nice idea if it can be made to work. Avoids discouraging caps and raises the lowest along with the highest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_&_Jerry's#Wages
http://conceptualmath.org/philo/minwage.html

This is a better option but I can't say I'm for it as well.

 

[Bogey]

If I may chime in. I'm strongly against an income cap.

I earn extraordinarily well - around a quarter million a year, with odds of doubling that a few years down the line.

Is that too much? Of course! There's no justification of why I'd earn multiples of nurses, policemen, or most other professions. There's no moral justification to my income.

But there is an economic one. Looking how I got to this point - I started working (in parallel to school of course) at 14, and never stopped til this day. I graduated in the top percentile from school, then same from undergrad, then same from postgrad. I invested all of my savings into my higher education and went to some of the most renowned universities there are, pouring in 100k or so for my degrees (not funded by family, but by my own work and strict saving). I now work 12 hour days, no breaks in between, barely any holidays, no public holidays.

And yes I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but I'm not saying this to boast. I'm extremely aware that in spite of all the effort, a very large part of where I am is purely down to luck as well.

But the gist is - reaching very high income often goes hand in hand with immense effort. And even then there's no guarantee - probably 9 out of 10 or so people I know with similar trajectories don't end up earning nearly as well.
But you need this carrot on a stick in order to get enough people to actually try. I would have NEVER more or less given up on my free time for more than a decade if the best I could have dreamt of was to earn twice the average or something like that.

Plus, keep in mind, even at such an income level I'd needs more than 10 years to pay off a 60 square meter flat where I live, but that's another story generally though, I think it's almost impossible to get enough wealth purely by income that really causes significant sociaty issues. To address the real disparity of wealth, you'd need to address inheritance. Billionaires don't earn their money with income in the vast majority of cases. Ajd even if somebody did, with proper inheritance taxes, they wouldn't keep it for much more than 50 years or so before it goes back to society

 

[DeafTourette]

What would y'all do who don't like the first 2 options in this thread?

How would you raise the minimum wage? Or by how much? Would you implement a law punishing a company for paying less than minimum (like the restaurant industry with wait staff) or moving their headquarters out of country to pay less taxes and less wages?

 

[michaelius]

Minimal wage is important - otherwise in case of crisis you would have race to the bottom between people looking for work and end with 19th century capitalism with people working 20h each day 7 days a week.

Income cap looks rather pointless- people who are paid wages aren't the ones forming 1% elite - most of the ridiculous fortunes comes from being company owner of having huge amount of stock options. Plus the more cash you have the more options of avoiding taxes and laws you get.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

i dont buy the myth that you need a carrot and a stick and if people weren't able to make unlimited money there would be no innovation. it's nice to tell yourself that once you make a quarter of a million a year tho. it is easy to pat yourself on the back and say it was all your hard work alone that led you here, while ignoring all the benefits you gain from being in a society of other people.

imo economic justifications are entirely hollow. it places life below money. it's the exact justification that creates disasters like the Deepwater Horizon spill, when 11 people were killed, the Gulf of Mexico was needlessly poisoned, entire fishing & tourism industries fucked over, all because a company prioritized saving money over spending just a little more for safety. you see this pattern everywhere all over the earth.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Minimal wage is important - otherwise in case of crisis you would have race to the bottom between people looking for work and end with 19th century capitalism with people working 20h each day 7 days a week.

Income cap looks rather pointless- people who are paid wages aren't the ones forming 1% elite - most of the ridiculous fortunes comes from being company owner of having huge amount of stock options. Plus the more cash you have the more options of avoiding taxes and laws you get.

In free markets, companies should be able to pay their employees whatever wages they want, that way you can separate the hard workers from the lazy. There should be no set limit on wages, and I really don't understand the premise of wealth being inherently a bad thing.

The teenage girl on her phone all day should not be making the same exact money I'm making. Period.

 

[Bogey]

i dont buy the myth that you need a carrot and a stick and if people weren't able to make unlimited money there would be no innovation. it's nice to tell yourself that once you make a quarter of a million a year tho. it is easy to pat yourself on the back and say it was all your hard work alone that led you here, while ignoring all the benefits you gain from being in a society of other people.

imo economic justifications are entirely hollow. it places life below money. it's the exact justification that creates disasters like the Deepwater Horizon spill, when 11 people were killed, the Gulf of Mexico was needlessly poisoned, entire fishing & tourism industries fucked over, all because a company prioritized saving money over spending just a little more for safety. you see this pattern everywhere all over the earth.

I assume you're referring to my post. In which case I hope you noticed how I explicitly pointed out: luck is a big part of the equation. But it's wrong to believe it's the only, or biggest factor. If eg I look around at my colleagues.. An ex NASA scientist, a guy with three Masters in mathematics, a Rhodes scholar etc.
Yes, it takes a massive amount of luck in life to even get the opportunity of obtaining such degrees, no doubt. But also no doubt that most people don't seize the opportunities they have - and if just they're not keen to give up almost all f their free time and personal life for decades, and that's quite fine too.

In terms of companies doing shady stuff to save costs - yup, agree. Of course it's absolutely on society's hands to change this, nobody is forcing anyone to be customers of any particular company, though people generally don't like to accept responsibility.
Either way - capping salaries won't change a bit though in a world where shareholders still exist. And that comes back to a question of existing wealth and inheritance, rather than income.

 

[michaelius]

In free markets, companies should be able to pay their employees whatever wages they want, that way you can separate the hard workers from the lazy. There should be no set limit on wages, and I really don't understand the premise of wealth being inherently a bad thing.

The teenage girl on her phone all day should not be making the same exact money I'm making. Period.

Nope - if you keep 100% pure capitalism you end with situation worse than in USA.

And think about scenario of small town where let's say 80-90% of work places are provided by single corporation - do you think having no minimal wage would be healthy for people there if their only choices are take what let's say Amazon warehouse offers or move out ?

As for the bolded no one is talking about that ? It's just a way to make sure people can survive above poverty levels if they work. Educated/skilled/experienced workers will always be paid more.

Also it's healthy for economy because if people don't have to spend everything on food they have something to spend on entertainment like going to bar/cinema/etc. stimulating local small business

 

[longdi]

Im all for rewarding hardwork, you guys are not the problem.
It is the extremely wealthy 1-2%, they are no longer about working hard. It is about hoarding unncessary riches, bank rolling between themselves. You can't pay someone 90mil just because another guy agreed too. You can even say that amount is coming from the pockets of everyday joe, those who bought into Google shares, now at $1000 a piece!
I believe a combination of the 3, min-max-ratio cap is best for us, some form of social-capitalism. Cmon you dont need so much wealth or power!

But nothing will change in my lifetime sadly.

I can see 2 forks in humanity, one the status quo remains, AI, robotics and e-banking will make control by the wealthy and powerful government even easier! We will just consume the earth resources until it is too late.

The other sci-fi possibilty, a large meteorite or castastrophe is observed, we have about 200 years to prepare ourselves, everyone band together to advance our race. I think post WW2 have seen the greatest leap in technology since! We need a global black swan event to straighten our moral compass again!

 

[longdi]

In free markets, companies should be able to pay their employees whatever wages they want, that way you can separate the hard workers from the lazy. There should be no set limit on wages, and I really don't understand the premise of wealth being inherently a bad thing.

The teenage girl on her phone all day should not be making the same exact money I'm making. Period.

When you think about it, companies get their funding from you and i, etf, stocks, 401, funds, banks savings. At least have the decency to pay it back to society and not among themselves.

 

[badblue]

In free markets, companies should be able to pay their employees whatever wages they want, that way you can separate the hard workers from the lazy. There should be no set limit on wages, and I really don't understand the premise of wealth being inherently a bad thing.

The teenage girl on her phone all day should not be making the same exact money I'm making. Period.

If companies could set the wage they want to pay people what every they want, they wouldn't be moving jobs over seas where they can get away with paying workers almost nothing. They would be keeping them here, and paying almost nothing.

Oh, and that girl you are talking about that is on her phone all day should not be making the same money as you. She should be making zero money, because she should have been fired for not doing her job. That's not a wage issue, that is an employment and management issue.

 

[KonradLaw]

Minimum wage definitely. maximin wage is extremely stupid idea, as all it would do is destroy the motivation of most talented people and in the end cripple the entire economy, thus creating less wealth for everybody.
This is sick way of thinking. Literally, it;s not healthy. Why in the world would you care how much everybody else has? So you can't be happy, no matter what, as long as somebody else is a lot wealthier than you? Because that's how petty this line of thinking is. What we should worry about it how to keep majority of population living in good condition and security. That's what's important.
Anything else is pure insanity. There will always be people who are far wealthier, prettier, more successful and liked than you are. If you need everybody else to be brought down for you to achieve happiness then you don't deserve such happiness.

 

[Papa]

Neither, but the max income cap is especially awful.

You need to read some Thomas Sowell to understand the economics of why neither is a good idea. I suggest starting here:

 

[JimiNutz]

Lots of responses explaining why minimum wage or maximum cap are poor ideas but what about the Maximum Ratio idea in the second post? That sounds like a healthy compromise?

 

[Papa]

Lots of responses explaining why minimum wage or maximum cap are poor ideas but what about the Maximum Ratio idea in the second post? That sounds like a healthy compromise?

Large corporations will just shift overseas. You can have individual companies that choose to have these policies, but they won't attract the best executive talent. You cannot legislate such policies unless you want to destroy your economy. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" applies to economics more than any other field that I can think of.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

At best a wage cap would just push compensation into financial assets. At worst you're talking about even more offshoring.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Better to have a floor than a ceiling.

One issue with Max ratio is accounting for other means of compensation than raw wages. Anyway it won't happen. But we can get a higher floor, that's the most doable.

 

[Cato]

Im all for rewarding hardwork, you guys are not the problem.
It is the extremely wealthy 1-2%, they are no longer about working hard. It is about hoarding unncessary riches, bank rolling between themselves. You can't pay someone 90mil just because another guy agreed too. You can even say that amount is coming from the pockets of everyday joe, those who bought into Google shares, now at $1000 a piece!
I believe a combination of the 3, min-max-ratio cap is best for us, some form of social-capitalism. Cmon you dont need so much wealth or power!

But nothing will change in my lifetime sadly.

I can see 2 forks in humanity, one the status quo remains, AI, robotics and e-banking will make control by the wealthy and powerful government even easier! We will just consume the earth resources until it is too late.

The other sci-fi possibilty, a large meteorite or castastrophe is observed, we have about 200 years to prepare ourselves, everyone band together to advance our race. I think post WW2 have seen the greatest leap in technology since! We need a global black swan event to straighten our moral compass again!

Maybe these 1-2% you are talking about are just much better than others at allocating resources where the resources makes most impact? In that case we should give these people, that have already proven their resource allocation skills
even more influence and power. So they allocate OUR resources too better than bueroctars do. We all win. Rising tide and boats and all.

 

[JimiNutz]

Large corporations will just shift overseas. You can have individual companies that choose to have these policies, but they won't attract the best executive talent. You cannot legislate such policies unless you want to destroy your economy. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" applies to economics more than any other field that I can think of.

Surely that applies to any sort of tax or financial regulation though? If such a tax or regulation doesn't exist in another country then companies are free to move but we still agree that some regulation is important?

Reading the link provided in the second post about Maximum Ratio and I can't really find many flaws with that system? The people at the top can still get richer, they just need to bring the people at the bottom up a little bit as well. It sounds like such a fair system in which everyone wins?

 

[Phoenix]

Interesting third option is Maximum Ratio.

Basically the highest paid person only gets a max of X times the lowest paid person. Ben and Jerry's did it long ago before Ben left and they ditched it. Nice idea if it can be made to work. Avoids discouraging caps and raises the lowest along with the highest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_&_Jerry's#Wages
http://conceptualmath.org/philo/minwage.html

This is something that works only if EVERYONE ELSE is forced to do it. If you go it alone, you'll eventually have to dump it when your competitors come and take your best talent by just offering them more.

 

[Papa]

Surely that applies to any sort of tax or financial regulation though? If such a tax or regulation doesn't exist in another country then companies are free to move but we still agree that some regulation is important?

Reading the link provided in the second post about Maximum Ratio and I can't really find many flaws with that system? The people at the top can still get richer, they just need to bring the people at the bottom up a little bit as well. It sounds like such a fair system in which everyone wins?

The executives will move overseas where the market will pay their value and the corporations will follow. Perhaps I should've presented that in reverse order. Unless you can implement the maximum ratio globally, it won't work. Moreover, what business does the government have tinkering with what private businesses can pay their employees? (Before you mention minimum wage laws, I don't agree with them, but I see them to be less harmful than maximum wage laws).

The paradox of economics is that the most well-intentioned policies generally have the most harmful effects for the very thing they are trying to fix. Take for example rent controls: as Sowell points out in Basic Economics, rent controls reduce the housing supply and increase the demand without allowing the prices to naturally fluctuate to reflect the true value of housing. This leads to unforeseen consequences like housing shortages in a market where developers are unwilling to invest due to inadequate returns, thus compounding the problem they were trying to fix in the first place.

The basic rule of thumb is: "tinker with the free market at your peril". We do need regulation to some degree because the free market is not perfect and can be abused, but too often bad policies are implemented without fully understanding the consequences simply to do something (with accompanying alarmist armwaving). I'm being forgiving here, because even more often the consequences are understood but are accepted anyway in order to gain votes, hurting said voters in the process, like the rent control example above. I would see maximum wage ratio policy going much the same way.

 

[Papa]

This is something that works only if EVERYONE ELSE is forced to do it. If you go it alone, you'll eventually have to dump it when your competitors come and take your best talent by just offering them more.

I think they're suggesting that all companies should be forced to do it through regulation, thus eliminating the threat of competitors poaching talent. Problem is that it would only do that locally, but would not stop it in the global market.

 

[Phoenix]

I think they're suggesting that all companies should be forced to do it through regulation, thus eliminating the threat of competitors poaching talent. Problem is that it would only do that locally, but would not stop it in the global market.

Ah, in that case no.

While I advocate the minimum wage to keep people from living in boxes - going past that is a bit of government overreach. The economics of the minimum wage from a practical perspective (as a net benefit as shown by the Seattle min. wage hike) puts the vast majority of that money right back into the economy so it tends to be more of a political "argument" than practical point.

 

[Papa]

Ah, in that case no.

While I advocate the minimum wage to keep people from living in boxes - going past that is a bit of government overreach. The economics of the minimum wage from a practical perspective (as a net benefit as shown by the Seattle min. wage hike) puts the vast majority of that money right back into the economy so it tends to be more of a political "argument" than practical point.

We could debate the pros/cons of minimum wage laws. I'm not as steadfastly against them as I am maximum wage laws. My biggest gripes with minimum wage laws are that they: are a barrier to entry for less experienced people, though progressive minimum wage as a function of age like we have in Australia help address this; accelerate investment in automation technology; and increase reliance on the welfare system due to the reduced availability of low skill jobs. Cost of living more or less adjusts to match the net money in the system. Minimum wage laws don't change this; they just shift the distribution of wages higher up with the low end falling into the welfare system.

 

[Bogey]

We could debate the pros/cons of minimum wage laws. I'm not as steadfastly against them as I am maximum wage laws. My biggest gripes with minimum wage laws are that they: are a barrier to entry for less experienced people, though progressive minimum wage as a function of age like we have in Australia help address this; accelerate investment in automation technology;

Is that a bad thing though?

I'd love for automation to progress rapidly - artificially slowing down progression, and productivity, is rarely a good idea. Also, I'd love to live in a world where barely any manual work is required anymore and people could just pursue their interests instead (whether that would actually work for most people, without a specific job giving structure to life, is actually an interesting question though).

Either way, the biggest issue would likely be (re)distribution of whatever productivity these automated processes generate. That's quite solvable on a political level - admittedly, most likely with a fair bit of social tension along the way until we'd get to a point where the tax/redistribution system as a whole would need to be overhauled. That's likely going to be an eventual consequence anyway though, no matter whether we slow down progress until then or not.

 

[Domisto]

As people have pointed out the Max Ratio idea would need an extensive set of rules to avoid loopholes like contracting, subsidiaries, off-shoring, bonus structures, stock options, benefits, payment in kind, etc. While I like it in theory, putting it into practice would be very difficult and possibly not worth it if we focused on other ways to combat inequality. Would love to see more companies do it voluntarily.

Don't like income cap. Too authoritarian for me.

One of the biggest problems with minimum wage laws is people expect it to fix the problem. It doesn't. It treats the symptoms of inequality and also has the risk of causing other unintended problems if it's raised too fast or plays badly with other policies. I'm in the UK and we have a pretty generous welfare system. It's terribly managed of course but I think if reorganised correctly that would set a de facto floor for minimum wage with the option for people to work for less if they wanted.

I'm not convinced we need any wage laws provided other methods are successful. If we want to tackle inequality I'd say the place to look first is housing and property and land and debt. But that's another thread.

 

[longdi]

Regarding corporations moving out, why cant developed countries come together and agree on having the same rates, a universal basic/max income. Governments and businesses talk about the goodnees of globalisation, should do something to raise the global income inclusively!

 

[TheLaughingStock]

This is all a bunch of nonsense to get poor, uneducated victims to vote. For example, if you paid the CEOs of McDonalds and Walmart $0, the difference going to the employees would be negligible. Let alone the possibility that the corporation would probably go under without a solid CEO.

The (expensive) lesson GE never learns

How about a #MeToo movement for executive compensation?

No joke. Corporate America has abused shareholders for too long. They have made a mockery of fairness, taste and responsible capitalism.

They have no more idea of proper incentives than Harvey Weinstein had of employee relations.

Their unceasing grabbing of tens of millions of other people's (their shareholders') money bespeaks a single phrase: the arrogance of power. They need a reset.

General Electric brought this to mind — the company that just, and for the second time in a year, replaced its CEO. It hired Lawrence Culp, a former CEO of Danaher, as chief executive. Without blushing, GE awarded Culp a contract that could be worth $300 million over the next four years. If that number doesn't shock you, you have been spending too much time reading the business pages.

You always hear folks whining that there's a skill shortage in the American labor market. However, I don't think many people ever mention the quality of work you get from folks who determine compensation.

Think about the US business headlines these days. A lot of CEOs just flat out suck or are a public embarassment from Wells Fargo to Twitter. Yet people are making big $$$ hand over fist. Granted, everybody isn't terrible. Nevertheless, it's not as if a bunch of Michael Jordans are out there bringing game changing value to the table. So, why in the world are people making 50x, 200x, 500x or whatever as much as folks down the totem pole? Either somehow this pay is justified or the system is completely rigged in the US.

 

[Papa]

Is that a bad thing though?

I'd love for automation to progress rapidly - artificially slowing down progression, and productivity, is rarely a good idea. Also, I'd love to live in a world where barely any manual work is required anymore and people could just pursue their interests instead (whether that would actually work for most people, without a specific job giving structure to life, is actually an interesting question though).

Either way, the biggest issue would likely be (re)distribution of whatever productivity these automated processes generate. That's quite solvable on a political level - admittedly, most likely with a fair bit of social tension along the way until we'd get to a point where the tax/redistribution system as a whole would need to be overhauled. That's likely going to be an eventual consequence anyway though, no matter whether we slow down progress until then or not.

From a productivity perspective, automation is absolutely a great thing. From a social perspective, absolutely not. Nothing will destroy a man quicker than taking away his purpose to get out of bed in the morning. Just look at the opioid crisis. The traditional left should be against automation because it will further concentrate power in the elite 0.001%, i.e. the people that own the means of automated production.

 

[Papa]

Regarding corporations moving out, why cant developed countries come together and agree on having the same rates, a universal basic/max income. Governments and businesses talk about the goodnees of globalisation, should do something to raise the global income inclusively!

If they can't agree on climate change, what makes you think they would agree on this?

 

[JCK75]

Neither...

 

[Corrik]

the ratio is an excellent idea. Min Wage raises just hurts the middle class.

 

[longdi]

If they can't agree on climate change, what makes you think they would agree on this?

How fucked are we?
I guess partly because the rich and their mega corps are holding the governments by their balls.
Still can't fathom we vested so much power to the 1%... why do they want millions and billions in their short life span. :/

AI is going to make things worst.

 

[bitbydeath]

I've always been a fan of the max cap idea.
It would certainly make the most impact on the world.

i dont buy the myth that you need a carrot and a stick and if people weren't able to make unlimited money there would be no innovation. it's nice to tell yourself that once you make a quarter of a million a year tho. it is easy to pat yourself on the back and say it was all your hard work alone that led you here, while ignoring all the benefits you gain from being in a society of other people.

imo economic justifications are entirely hollow. it places life below money. it's the exact justification that creates disasters like the Deepwater Horizon spill, when 11 people were killed, the Gulf of Mexico was needlessly poisoned, entire fishing & tourism industries fucked over, all because a company prioritized saving money over spending just a little more for safety. you see this pattern everywhere all over the earth.

Agreed. Also I see it as a stance that says I'm looking out for me only, fuck everybody else.
If this really worked then imagine what it could do for the world.

The best way to explain it though is to look at the old cities and their magnificent structures they had built in yesteryear, ever wonder why that doesn't exist anymore? The answer is greed.

 

[Woo-Fu]

You couldn't effectively implement an income cap, at least not in the US. Any income over the limit would be converted into some other sort of benefit so that people at cap could still be further compensated. Even if they have to spend 50% of their above-cap earnings on lawyers to get the other 50%, they'd do it. You have a president who thinks it is smart to not have had to pay taxes on his income for the past 20 years, after all.

Fine with a minimum wage, though. You'll still have illegals/under-the-table employees but it isn't hard to find/prosecute/punish any larger company exploiting such.

 

[Papa]

How fucked are we?
I guess partly because the rich and their mega corps are holding the governments by their balls.
Still can't fathom we vested so much power to the 1%... why do they want millions and billions in their short life span. :/

AI is going to make things worst.

It is a mistake to assume that the size of the pie is fixed. Why does it matter if a handful of people are multi-billionaires if you are able to live a comfortable and happy life? This is the kind of thinking that leads to communism. What matters is absolute poverty, but that is independent of the top end of incomes.

 

[Z..]

Nothing will destroy a man quicker than taking away his purpose to get out of bed in the morning.

That is a consequence of our upbringing, don't read too much into it. Change the values, change the man. That reality is merely the product of living in a world where your worth is quantified in currency.

It is a mistake to assume that the size of the pie is fixed. Why does it matter if a handful of people are multi-billionaires if you are able to live a comfortable and happy life?

I think the issue is one of global balance. In other words, it shouldn't be about improving the life of those of us who already live a comfortable and happy life but about using those resources where they would actually have a (very noticeable) impact. Essentially, rehabilitating regions that keep being ravaged by modern capitalism, mainly Asia and Africa.

 

[Papa]

That is a consequence of our upbringing, don't read too much into it. Change the values, change the man. That reality is merely the product of living in a world where your worth is quantified in currency.

Are you saying that the need for purpose in life is a result of upbringing rather than intrinsic human nature?

 

[Z..]

Are you saying that the need for purpose in life is a result of upbringing rather than intrinsic human nature?

No. I'm saying purpose and work/money being associated with each other is abhorrent, from a humanist perspective. And that association is indeed a result of our upbringing, it's a result of 18th/19th century industrialism.

 

[Papa]

No. I'm saying purpose and work/money being associated with each other is abhorrent, from a humanist perspective. And that association is indeed a result of our upbringing, it's a result of 18th/19th century industrialism.

How exactly are you defining purpose?

 

[Z..]

How exactly are you defining purpose?

Pursuit of happiness. That such a noble goal has become so obsessively linked with the modern interpretation of success is the most depressing thing about the current state of affairs, especially in the sense that most seem content and eager to participate in the rat race and find meaning in such vapid existences to the point where I really don't see any possibility of it changing in any meaningful scale in the forseeable future.

 

[Papa]

Pursuit of happiness. That such a noble goal has become so obsessively linked with the modern interpretation of success is the most depressing thing about the current state of affairs, especially in the sense that most seem content and eager to participate in the rat race and find meaning in such vapid existences to the point where I really don't see any possibility of it changing in any meaningful scale in the forseeable future.

This is all very idealistic. How do you propose we provide 7+ billion (and growing) people with a daily purpose outside of work?

 

[Z..]

This is all very idealistic. How do you propose we provide 7+ billion (and growing) people with a daily purpose outside of work?

You're confusing function and purpose. Ironic, considering. That's exactly what we're doing wrong. When discussing sentient, intelligent beings, those are two entirely different concepts. We need not eliminate function to change our purpose, I'm not dreaming out loud about utopias that could never be, merely trying to tell you that the function we serve shouldn't be linked to the purposes we seek unless we ourselves decide it to be so. We've been deprived of such a choice for too long, it seems.

 

[longdi]

It is a mistake to assume that the size of the pie is fixed. Why does it matter if a handful of people are multi-billionaires if you are able to live a comfortable and happy life? This is the kind of thinking that leads to communism. What matters is absolute poverty, but that is independent of the top end of incomes.

It matters because their source of funds come mainly from us, the little guys. Be it from buying google shares to buying their products. Why should Larry thinks 90mil is a fair compensation to Andy Rubin? I think 9mil can allow one to live comfortably for 1-2 generations. With 90mil, a single person can hoarde up more wealth generating assets, and again sucking more up from us.

Why shouldn't authorities mandate Google to pay the 81mil back to shareholders or society? Make huge compensation package illegal or have a min-max ratio, you have to repay shareholders 900mil first!