Support NeoGAF

[Papa]

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.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand human nature and are making absurd utopian propositions as a result, no matter how much you protest that you aren't. Purpose relates to improving our (and our family's) position on the social hierarchy. Money is the incentive that motivates billions of people to participate in the system rather than tear it down.

 

[Papa]

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!

You are quite literally advocating communism without the self-awareness to realise it.

 

[longdi]

You are quite literally advocating communism without the self-awareness to realise it.

I prefer to think of it as socio-capitalism.
Put back to society a fair share of your capital gains, by way of proper regulations and some art of giving.

90mil is absurd, it is no longer about fair renumeration or brilliance or hard work. Basically it is illegal back patting amongst the 1% cohort

 

[Super Mario]

The (expensive) lesson GE never learns

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. It was talked about that CEOs making too much is limiting the wages of others, forcing them to live on a non-livable minimum wage. Then I mentioned not only is this not true, but bone-headed leadership is the actual worst case scenario for the worker. Then you posted an article about bone-headed leadership. I think we can both agree that quality leadership is crucial for a company to survive. The pay is something the socialists use to militarize the base. You don't see anyone saying celebrities and athletes are making too much.

 

[Papa]

I prefer to think of it as socio-capitalism.
Put back to society a fair share of your capital gains, by way of proper regulations and some art of giving.

90mil is absurd, it is no longer about fair renumeration or brilliance or hard work. Basically it is illegal back patting amongst the 1% cohort

Out of interest, why are you focusing on corporate executives and not actors, athletes, lottery winners, etc.?

 

[Papa]

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. It was talked about that CEOs making too much is limiting the wages of others, forcing them to live on a non-livable minimum wage. Then I mentioned not only is this not true, but bone-headed leadership is the actual worst case scenario for the worker. Then you posted an article about bone-headed leadership. I think we can both agree that quality leadership is crucial for a company to survive. The pay is something the socialists use to militarize the base. You don't see anyone saying celebrities and athletes are making too much.

Ha, wrote my last reply referencing celebrities and athletes before seeing yours.

 

[Z..]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand human nature and are making absurd utopian propositions as a result, no matter how much you protest that you aren't. Purpose relates to improving our (and our family's) position on the social hierarchy. Money is the incentive that motivates billions of people to participate in the system rather than tear it down.

I'm actually talking about ideas that have been with us since the fertile crescent blossomed civilization into being and that have shaped us ever since. Stoicism and epicureanism crystalized these ideas and they've been with us ever since. Your inability to recognize that indicates a poor knowledge of our history. There's nothing utopian about it, at all. Your stance on purpose is intrinsically linked with modern era industrialist/capitalist ideals (your deification of ideals such as wealth, family and social hierarchy makes this obvious), and the staunchness of your claim leads me to believe there's not much I can say to make this discussion fruitful. If you hail from the US or a Commonwealth country such a stance makes perfect sense, though... not sure if that's the case or not, however, I'd point you in the direction of two BBC documentary series that will illustrate how non-utopian my rhetoric actually is. Check out The Ascent of Man and Civilisation for a refresher course on human history on a zoomed out scale and you'll see none of what I'm saying is the least bit utopian.

 

[longdi]

Out of interest, why are you focusing on corporate executives and not actors, athletes, lottery winners, etc.?

Im not sure about lottery winners, isnt it totally random, less rigged than casino gambling. Perhaps have 100x more winners instead of 1 jackpotter.

The other 2 are also caused by corporates and CEOs. Same shit. Live football (soccer) used to be way cheaper 10 years ago, i am never a fan of idol worshipping, never bought a sports merchandise. I don't really care about actors and gossips surrounding them, i do visit cinemas here and then, tickets are still affordable. Im all for capping them either way. Which will bring down the costs of entertainment and bringing up society feel good factor with it

 

[Papa]

I'm actually talking about ideas that have been with us since the fertile crescent blossomed civilization into being and that have shaped us ever since. Stoicism and epicureanism crystalized these ideas and they've been with us ever since. Your inability to recognize that indicates a poor knowledge of our history. There's nothing utopian about it, at all. Your stance on purpose is intrinsically linked with modern era industrialist/capitalist ideals (your deification of ideals such as wealth, family and social hierarchy makes this obvious), and the staunchness of your claim leads me to believe there's not much I can say to make this discussion fruitful. If you hail from the US or a Commonwealth country such a stance makes perfect sense, though... not sure if that's the case or not, however, I'd point you in the direction of two BBC documentary series that will illustrate how non-utopian my rhetoric actually is. Check out The Ascent of Man and Civilisation for a refresher course on human history on a zoomed out scale and you'll see none of what I'm saying is the least bit utopian.

You have offered no practical ideas and are just parroting nonsense.

 

[Papa]

Im not sure about lottery winners, isnt it totally random, less rigged than casino gambling. Perhaps have 100x more winners instead of 1 jackpotter.

The other 2 are also caused by corporates and CEOs. Same shit. Live football (soccer) used to be way cheaper 10 years ago, i am never a fan of idol worshipping, never bought a sports merchandise. I don't really care about actors and gossips surrounding them, i do visit cinemas here and then, tickets are still affordable. Im all for capping them either way. Which will bring down the costs of entertainment and bringing up society feel good factor with it

The bolded is completely incorrect. Athlete and celebrity earnings are a result of the free market.

You are making the mistake that so many unfortunately do: namely, you are viewing wealth as something to be redistributed rather than created.

 

[longdi]

The bolded is completely incorrect. Athlete and celebrity earnings are a result of the free market.

You are making the mistake that so many unfortunately do: namely, you are viewing wealth as something to be redistributed rather than created.

Imo it's the agents and firms that are selling your sports teams and celebs. There is nothing free here.

I believe wealth needs redistribution since it is not really created. Supply of dollar bills is controlled by central banks around the world, governments should hence regulate how much it can/cannot flow to individuals.

 

[Papa]

Imo it's the agents and firms that are selling your sports teams and celebs. There is nothing free here.

I believe wealth needs redistribution since it is not really created. Supply of dollar bills is controlled by central banks around the world, governments should hence regulate how much it can/cannot flow to individuals.

With all due respect, please educate yourself on economics before trying to change the world. I recommend starting with Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, which I mentioned on the first page.

 

[Z..]

You have offered no practical ideas and are just parroting nonsense.

You're going to need to substantiate that claim, as it's highly offensive. I literally pointed you towards the practical crystalization of the ideas I'm attempting to convey (stoicism and epicureanism, for reference), what in the fuck are you on about?
You want a dumbed down version of my initial overall point regarding your statement? Humans' ideals are defined by the culture that surrounds them and the point you made which I countered is a self perpetuating fallacy since it hinges on circumstances in which there was no prior reform.

 

[Papa]

You're going to need to substantiate that claim, as it's highly offensive. I literally pointed you towards the practical crystalization of the ideas I'm attempting to convey (stoicism and epicureanism, for reference), what in the fuck are you on about?
You want a dumbed down version of my initial overall point regarding your statement? Humans' ideals are defined by the culture that surrounds them and the point you made which I countered is a self perpetuating fallacy since it hinges on circumstances in which there was no prior reform.

Explain to me precisely how you plan to implement these ideas and replace the capitalist rat race rather than throwing out vague references to things you learned in Philosophy 101 and telling me to connect the dots myself. You're free to live with your head in the clouds but you need to plant your feet back on earth if you want anyone to listen to you.

 

[longdi]

With all due respect, please educate yourself on economics before trying to change the world. I recommend starting with Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, which I mentioned on the first page.

Im not economics trained, going to watch some YT related videos later, lol.
But i believe new supply of money is created this way,
-some bright guy takes a loan from bank to startup
-bank will assess his idea and loan him at x%
-bank gets that money from central bank(aka printing house), replayable at y%
-guy setup his company, pays his vendors
-vendors pay their employees
-employees invest their pay into bright guy company or buy his goods
-bright guy decides to pay himself a huge amount from the monies received.

 

[Z..]

Explain to me precisely how you plan to implement these ideas and replace the capitalist rat race rather than throwing out vague references to things you learned in Philosophy 101 and telling me to connect the dots myself.

Sorry if I'm a bit sloppy with my words in this reply, I had a few too many beers over dinner just now... I love your whole shtick, you're a class act. Should know to expect ad hominems from someone who's making appeals to the stone so nonchalantly.

As if three fallacies weren't enough, you choose to go for broke and pull out a strawman to finish in style!

To clarify the above... Who said anything about replacing capitalism? The rat race I could do without, but I never said anything whatsoever about replacing capitalism. Though there is no shortage of suitable post-growth economy alternatives, that is completely besides the point as I personally am pro capitalism. Not that I personally believe it's some sort of gift from the Gods, but quite frankly too many of us are entirely too selfish and have inflated egos and as such none of the current alternatives would work since they are too idealistic to accomodate our nature and as such capitalism is unfortunately the only functional system... as such I am very much pro capitalism, though not the most popular version of it... we need much harsher progressive taxation and drastic education/healthcare reforms as well as much better welfare safety nets. My personal beef is with our modern set of values on an ideological level, especially regarding wealth, careers and how intertwined our sense of self worth has become with these two concepts. Personally, I have a career I am satisfied with in that I do what I love for a living, but that makes me an outlier... the vast majority of people work out of necessity, not because they actively enjoy it. And therein lies the crux of the problem I have with the rat race. I am now in my mid 30s and it's ever so depressing to see the vast majority of my once motivated and independent thinking friends and acquaintances either getting crushed under the pressure to suceed to the point of inducing mental illness/addiction or completely disappear into careers they're not even excited about just so they can surround themselves with meaningless trinkets they don't need... consumption has become the main way they interact with each other and the world, it's the cornerstone of who they are and they define themselves according to what they consume. Basically, that crap you said about social hierarchy and money being the incentive that motivates them rings absolutely true. Which, yet again, is completely abhorrent from a humanist perspective. Money and social status should never be the driving force behind one's purpose, that can only be properly served by pursuing happiness, not wealth and status! Unless, of course, those are your ideals of happiness, which has become the norm since the industrial revolution. And while it's nauseating to me that some, like you, seem to celebrate such decadence, it has nonetheless become the de facto way of life in the modern western world.
This is where stoicism and epicureanism come in and the crux of what I was telling you. We all need some level of wealth to be comfortable, independent and happy and we mustn't dream life away and completely ignore our responsabilites, but this relentless pursuit of status and wealth serves no purpose if it fails to make us happy and since the vast majority of people are, in fact, not happy it would seem this paradigm is clearly not working. Work hard enough to make sure you're comfortable, yes... but not one iota more. The balance between stoicism and epicureanism is key. Serve your function, but always follow your purpose. They have become one and the same, as you perfectly illustrated. That is the rat race, not capitalism itself. The rat race is the byproduct of our deification of status and wealth. Let the things that make you happy be your purpose, your career is merely a function. Rarely do they ever intertwine.
(which was the whole point from the start, your statement about destroying a man by removing his job is fallacious since that only applies in a post industrialist reality and will inevitably cease to apply at some point in the hopefully not too far future, but getting to that point is up to us, where as your argument against change was that since that's the case now, it'll always be the case, which we know for a fact is untrue, historically and a complete fallacy since only circumstance dictates what would happen).

I apologize for being "vague" and expecting you to connect the dots (there really weren't any dots left to connect after I flatout told you what I was talking about, but of course, you just dismissed it). The philosophy was so basic (as you yourself put it, 101) that I assumed you would understand it.

You're free to live with your head in the clouds but you need to plant your feet back on earth if you want anyone to listen to you.

I love the irony here... you present nothing but fallacious arguments yet I'm the one who's credibility is on the line. Priceless.

 

[Papa]

Sorry if I'm a bit sloppy with my words in this reply, I had a few too many beers over dinner just now... I love your whole shtick, you're a class act. Should know to expect ad hominems from someone who's making appeals to the stone so nonchalantly.

As if three fallacies weren't enough, you choose to go for broke and pull out a strawman to finish in style!

To clarify the above... Who said anything about replacing capitalism? The rat race I could do without, but I never said anything whatsoever about replacing capitalism. Though there is no shortage of suitable post-growth economy alternatives, that is completely besides the point as I personally am pro capitalism. Not that I personally believe it's some sort of gift from the Gods, but quite frankly too many of us are entirely too selfish and have inflated egos and as such none of the current alternatives would work since they are too idealistic to accomodate our nature and as such capitalism is unfortunately the only functional system... as such I am very much pro capitalism, though not the most popular version of it... we need much harsher progressive taxation and drastic education/healthcare reforms as well as much better welfare safety nets. My personal beef is with our modern set of values on an ideological level, especially regarding wealth, careers and how intertwined our sense of self worth has become with these two concepts. Personally, I have a career I am satisfied with in that I do what I love for a living, but that makes me an outlier... the vast majority of people work out of necessity, not because they actively enjoy it. And therein lies the crux of the problem I have with the rat race. I am now in my mid 30s and it's ever so depressing to see the vast majority of my once motivated and independent thinking friends and acquaintances either getting crushed under the pressure to suceed to the point of inducing mental illness/addiction or completely disappear into careers they're not even excited about just so they can surround themselves with meaningless trinkets they don't need... consumption has become the main way they interact with each other and the world, it's the cornerstone of who they are and they define themselves according to what they consume. Basically, that crap you said about social hierarchy and money being the incentive that motivates them rings absolutely true. Which, yet again, is completely abhorrent from a humanist perspective. Money and social status should never be the driving force behind one's purpose, that can only be properly served by pursuing happiness, not wealth and status! Unless, of course, those are your ideals of happiness, which has become the norm since the industrial revolution. And while it's nauseating to me that some, like you, seem to celebrate such decadence, it has nonetheless become the de facto way of life in the modern western world.
This is where stoicism and epicureanism come in and the crux of what I was telling you. We all need some level of wealth to be comfortable, independent and happy and we mustn't dream life away and completely ignore our responsabilites, but this relentless pursuit of status and wealth serves no purpose if it fails to make us happy and since the vast majority of people are, in fact, not happy it would seem this paradigm is clearly not working. Work hard enough to make sure you're comfortable, yes... but not one iota more. The balance between stoicism and epicureanism is key. Serve your function, but always follow your purpose. They have become one and the same, as you perfectly illustrated. That is the rat race, not capitalism itself. The rat race is the byproduct of our deification of status and wealth. Let the things that make you happy be your purpose, your career is merely a function. Rarely do they ever intertwine.
(which was the whole point from the start, your statement about destroying a man by removing his job is fallacious since that only applies in a post industrialist reality and will inevitably cease to apply at some point in the hopefully not too far future, but getting to that point is up to us, where as your argument against change was that since that's the case now, it'll always be the case, which we know for a fact is untrue, historically and a complete fallacy since only circumstance dictates what would happen).

I apologize for being "vague" and expecting you to connect the dots (there really weren't any dots left to connect after I flatout told you what I was talking about, but of course, you just dismissed it). The philosophy was so basic (as you yourself put it, 101) that I assumed you would understand it.



I love the irony here... you present nothing but fallacious arguments yet I'm the one who's credibility is on the line. Priceless.

You know, I can actually agree with much of what you have to say here in terms of ideals. This is what you should have said from the start, because your message was entirely unclear up until this point. Don't lose sight of the fact that OP's question is framed around implementing his idea in a capitalist system. I am attempting to describe why OP's idea will not work based on what is, not what you or I may like there to be. In that context, I agree that self worth is intertwined with wealth and career, but that is the context in which I discuss purpose. We can discuss how purpose may change in systems other than capitalism or how your apparent disillusionment with the current system is affecting your ability to derive purpose from your job, but that's separate to the idea in the OP that I was responding to.

 

[bitbydeath]

The current system is not sustainable, like climate change we are in too deep and will likely have the change forced upon us in future as opposed to heads coming together now to find a better way.

Talking is great but few are willing to accept a change of this magnitude because as others have posted there is a mindset that making money is the meaning of life.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Thanks for keeping it respectful, everyone.

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.

It's the company's call, and whether you have qualms with that or not, it doesn't matter. Companies should be able to pay whatever they want instead of being forced to pay their employees the same amount of money.

And if that worker always gets fired for not doing her job, then how do we keep these people in the workplace? Shouldn't everybody be contributing to society without being worried about losing their jobs? I'm just saying that more qualified people deserve higher wages, and nobody should be paid equally if there are better workers.

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

I don't know if I would consider America to be a purely capitalist economy, but we're certainly a free market economy and I disagree with federal minimum wages because I personally believe in free market capitalism myself; and I think that removing the federal minimum wage would be better for everyone. It'll filter out the good and weed out the bad.

Not having a minimum wage doesn't have to be about companies paying their employees the lowest common denominator. I don't disagree that that may or may not happen, but it's clear that companies don't always prioritize qualifications all the time, so I completely disagree with the notion that better workers will literally *always* be paid more if their personal politics are taken for account. What doesn't make sense to me is that a federal minimum wage, and only a federal minimum wage, will be enough for people to survive above poverty when Democrats complain about the current amount. Clearly it's not working, and raising it even more would just make things worse.

 

[Zaru]

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.

People in the top 2% typically
- Work in already wealthy cities with inflated cost of living so they're compensated higher
- Make money FROM money (transactional wealth accumulation without productivity, buying up real estate to leech money off renters)
- Avoid paying taxes to retain more wealth

Framing this as "allocating resources" is some funny shit

 

[badblue]

It's the company's call, and whether you have qualms with that or not, it doesn't matter. Companies should be able to pay whatever they want instead of being forced to pay their employees the same amount of money.

Out side of a few variable (such as minimum wage), companies are not forced to pay their employees the same amount of money. They can pay a more qualified worker more then a less qualified worker. They just don't if they don't have to.
You could have a PhD and if the company wanted pay you the same as a high school grad, they would. We are already seeing this with jobs being posted with requirements of 5+ years of experience but entry level wage. "Oh but people don't have to take those jobs." I hear you say, and true they don't. But people get desperate when they are out of work, and someone will take that job, and if that happens enough, it will drive that median wage down. And soon, that $80,000/year job will be $60,000/year (or less). Or maybe no one will take it, and the company can petition the government claiming that no one is taking the jobs they are posting. They just can't find the workers... and they can just hired TFW's and pay them a lot less then what you would demand for that job. Do you see the no win situation? "Oh but the government will do something to stop that." You mean like passing a law like The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, that prevents companies for taking advantage of workers?
Everything you take for granted in a work setting, people fought for. (Things like minimum wage, 8 hour work days, weekends) Why would you want to go back to that now, if people fought against it then?

And if that worker always gets fired for not doing her job, then how do we keep these people in the workplace? Shouldn't everybody be contributing to society without being worried about losing their jobs?

Then that is that workers problem. People need to take some measure of personal responsibility. If you keep getting fired for being lazy and not working, maybe you should stop being lazy and start working.

I'm just saying that more qualified people deserve higher wages, and nobody should be paid equally if there are better workers.

Yes they do, I agree with that. And this is where raises and salary negotiations come in. But companies don't want to pay someone more then they have to. Have you not noticed in the last twenty years or so, the only really way to get a raise is to jump ship because the company you are working for just doesn't want to pay you what you are worth?

What doesn't make sense to me is that a federal minimum wage, and only a federal minimum wage, will be enough for people to survive above poverty when Democrats complain about the current amount. Clearly it's not working, and raising it even more would just make things worse.

The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. That's the problem.

 

[Idiocracy]

This discussion belongs on poligaf.

Living in a country with both high wages at the bottom and high taxes at the top, there is little evidence that the best business leaders move to the countries with lowest taxes. If that was the case most companies would have moved their headquarters to Luxemburg and the likes around the last recession or before, they didn't. They used it to maximize profits, but they knew that keeping their leadership in EU countries and the US would add some credibility and offer more profits than moving.

Macro economics is not a hard science and there are both ups and downs to most ideas. According to econometrics none of them are right, but there are some things that add up.

 

[BANGS]

You'd have to be a real jealous bitter moron to think wage caps would help anyone...

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Out side of a few variable (such as minimum wage), companies are not forced to pay their employees the same amount of money. They can pay a more qualified worker more then a less qualified worker. They just don't if they don't have to.
You could have a PhD and if the company wanted pay you the same as a high school grad, they would. We are already seeing this with jobs being posted with requirements of 5+ years of experience but entry level wage. "Oh but people don't have to take those jobs." I hear you say, and true they don't. But people get desperate when they are out of work, and someone will take that job, and if that happens enough, it will drive that median wage down. And soon, that $80,000/year job will be $60,000/year (or less). Or maybe no one will take it, and the company can petition the government claiming that no one is taking the jobs they are posting. They just can't find the workers... and they can just hired TFW's and pay them a lot less then what you would demand for that job. Do you see the no win situation? "Oh but the government will do something to stop that." You mean like passing a law like The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, that prevents companies for taking advantage of workers?
Everything you take for granted in a work setting, people fought for. (Things like minimum wage, 8 hour work days, weekends) Why would you want to go back to that now, if people fought against it then?

They could pay a more qualified worker if they wanted to, but what if they can't afford them, or what if there isn't a job available to that person? Sure, issue a state-based minimum wage for large corporations that can afford it, but I'm not too keen of taking options away; since people in poverty would be happy to take nickels and dimes as long as they have a job - and yes - federal minimum wages can and have historically drive up poverty rates. I don't trust the government, so do you really think that I believe they will do something to stop qualified workers from taking lesser jobs because others aren't available to them? In fact, I think that that helps my argument a little bit.

Nobody said that anybody wanted us to go back to the way things were, I am a libertarian and I am stating this from that perspective; and policies pre-1930's didn't reflect upon libertarian ideas. I do not believe in the government issuing a forced wage - that's not meant to be a living wage to begin with - because I believe that it gives companies less opportunities for their workers, and can be/has driven small companies out of business especially if we made the minimum wage a "living wage" at around $15.

Then that is that workers problem. People need to take some measure of personal responsibility. If you keep getting fired for being lazy and not working, maybe you should stop being lazy and start working.

I get that, but subjectively speaking, I personally have a stigma about employee termination because I believe that other courses of discipline could be applied. That's just ignorance on my part, though, but to answer this... they don't have to fire them if they can force them to quit by paying them less and this wouldn't be illegal if there wasn't a federal minimum wage restricting them from thinning out the bad. Don't companies want to fire as little people as possible, or compel these lazy entitled workers to improve instead of leaving them without a job?

Yes they do, I agree with that. And this is where raises and salary negotiations come in. But companies don't want to pay someone more then they have to. Have you not noticed in the last twenty years or so, the only really way to get a raise is to jump ship because the company you are working for just doesn't want to pay you what you are worth?

To be honest with you, I haven't been around long enough to notice. It's actually pretty hard to negotiate for raises or salaried positions, and if the more qualified workers are bringing more revenue in than most people or are significant assets to their departments, then they should be obligated to. Then you have to factor in jobs not being available because they were already filled, but what if those people are less qualified? Should they fire them? Since surely they don't deserve yet another promotion.

The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. That's the problem.

You're right, and increasing it would only make it worse. The left aren't taking into account the fact that if you increase the federal minimum wage, the prices of ALL goods go up. It would be terrible.

You'd have to be a real jealous bitter moron to think wage caps would help anyone...

Pointless insults aside, you'd have to be real jealous and bitter to think that federal minimum wages would help anyone, especially those in poverty. You clearly don't understand how well we have it here.

 

[Papa]

People in the top 2% typically
- Work in already wealthy cities with inflated cost of living so they're compensated higher
- Make money FROM money (transactional wealth accumulation without productivity, buying up real estate to leech money off renters)
- Avoid paying taxes to retain more wealth

Framing this as "allocating resources" is some funny shit

He's talking about why executives are paid so much more than the standard employees, which directly relates to the maximum ratio cap proposed by the OP. He's not talking about what they do with their money afterwards.

 

[Gander]

Wages is not the fault of the common man, so there is no responsibility on him to fix it but it's complex problem because it is in two parts.

There needs to be movement on the part of businesses as well as The FED. Without those two parts nothing is going to change.

 

[badblue]

HaveButOneLife I think you are missing the point. Companies are greedy, and they care more about the bottom line or the shareholder more then they care about the workers. A lot of companies could take a single digit percentage loss in profits, and pay their workers more then they do now. But they don't. In fact, they will "restructure" in order to get a higher percentage by laying off workers. Did they need to lay people off? No, they just didn't want to report a 2% loss for the fiscal year.
Without laws and regulations in place they would do what they are doing now, trying to take as much advantage of the workers as possible. We cannot go back, and any changes would need to be done within the frame work we have established. And any changes that fall out side of that, would need a structure for that. If we say, got rid of the minimum wage, would you accept something like a universal basic income that provided for the bare necessities of living? (food and shelter)

I get that, but subjectively speaking, I personally have a stigma about employee termination because I believe that other courses of discipline could be applied. That's just ignorance on my part, though, but to answer this... they don't have to fire them if they can force them to quit by paying them less and this wouldn't be illegal if there wasn't a federal minimum wage restricting them from thinning out the bad. Don't companies want to fire as little people as possible, or compel these lazy entitled workers to improve instead of leaving them without a job?

Firing someone is often the last resort. Often warnings, right ups and other procedures are done multiple times before someone is fired. At least where workers have rights. (that is a pot shot at the at-will employment laws which are terrible and thankfully I am not subjected to)
And FYI, forcing someone to quite, by paying them less is considered constructive dismissal and they can get unemployment for that.

You're right, and increasing it would only make it worse. The left aren't taking into account the fact that if you increase the federal minimum wage, the prices of ALL goods go up. It would be terrible.

Would it make things worse by driving up prices? Maybe we should look to Australia where the minimum wage is quite high.

Has the economy crumbled under the weight of high wages? No. The Australian economy has fared quite well by international standards. GDP per capita is healthy at around US$48,000, compared with Canada's $44,000. The unemployment rate is low, at 5.4 per cent nationally. There has not been a recession since the early 1990s. This is arguably in part a result of the buoyancy of demand created by high wages.
Have these wages made life horribly expensive for the consumer? Not really. OECD price level indexes for 2016 place Australia at 125-per-cent OECD average and Canada at 107 per cent. Prices that are sensitive to the cost of labour, such as restaurants, do seem to be higher. However, where prices are higher, they can usually be met by well-paid workers.

It is always nice to for another country to put something into practice so that we can see how it will work out.

 

[levyjl1988]

There's a reason why there are currency caps in games so you don't break the game design. It's hard to climb out of a rut with so many handicaps. Society should mimic itself in game design if it needs to improve. Taxing the rich is a sort of balance patch to address this. Joker killing all of the rich in his new movie based on short videos and Bane taking Gotham has much to do with oppression. I can see society rebelling. In the end we will all eat each other.

 

[Zaru]

He's talking about why executives are paid so much more than the standard employees, which directly relates to the maximum ratio cap proposed by the OP. He's not talking about what they do with their money afterwards.

That's circular logic though. They should be paid more because they're paid more? The fuck?

 

[Papa]

That's circular logic though. They should be paid more because they're paid more? The fuck?

Uh, no. He was talking about how much they're paid. You were talking about how much they spend.

 

[-Minsc-]

Maximum income cap sounds nice, just as all the other economic systems (which I admit, I don't have the best grasp of). Really though I'd say it's more a brain/mind development and, perhaps, moral issue. We tend to get set in our habits, changing can be hard.

 

[Ray Wonder]

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

i'll pm you my paypal

 

[kingbean]

The only thing that bothers me about upping the minimum wage is that I worked my ass off to make the slightly above median income in my state and if the minimum wage raised I know my income wouldn't go up and that I could make nearly as much money by doing easy minimum wage work.

Like that talk of wanting 15 dollars to do McDonalds, that made me so mad. I agree that 7.25 is too little, but 15 bucks for flipping burgers and taking orders is too much at this time. Give it another 50 years when the cost of living is stupid and 15 dollars and hour won't mean shit.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

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.

Thing is while the amount of wealth an individual should be able to accrue shouldn't be capped. There needs to be inheritance taxes large enough to stop wealth from concentrating too much.

It is said if the stock market doesn't experience recession, in the coming years, Bezos will become a trillionaire in the coming decade. Which is pretty good and shouldn't be restricted, he's a smart man that can make good use of such resources. But here's the deal, generations down the line the growth in wealth will eventually create families that are quadrillionaires and eventually it'll go beyond that, that is people that in one second earn more than all the citizens in some nations will earn in their entire lifetimes.

This would be the creation of a new nobility, to which there may be no way to work your way up to, as their wealth grows so fast no amount of effort or innovation can allow you to keep up.

Remember money is a means of rationing out resources. But when the concentration gets so high, a minority may have the power of diverting all the resources of the earth to fulfill their whims even at the expense of the rest of the population. You can't outbid them, when an individual has more wealth than say the united states government, he can outbid even the U.S. gov. and outstrip its ability to acquire resources for its citizens. The resources are limited, and more money means the ability to come first in line, and even get an excessive cut of said limited resources.

That said, while I don't think it is realistic to massively increase the minimum wage, I believe people shouldn't be trapped into debt slavery or wages so low they can't have any chance of improving their lot in life. Aid should be provided to those who are capable of improving their lot to improve their lot. But we must also realize that there are many that simply lack the ability to improve their lot even if given the means to improve. These individuals also deserve a life of dignity and respect, and the ability to rest. Hopefully future automation will be able to allow them to work at what they're passionate about and be free to abstain from work if they desire, but right now there are many unpleasant jobs that need to be done.