NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0904/p21s1-wmcr.html

Its fairly long but damn interesting.

Does anybody here actually think that it's right for one person to be earning 531 times more than somebody else?

Should we introduce maximum wage laws while raising minimum wage laws?

Should we abolish minimum wage laws and let the market sort itself out?

Should we shoot a bunch of random people and claim Charles Manson told us to do it?

C'mon people. I especially want to hear anarchocapitalists' and conservatives' opinions on this subject.

rofl abolish minimum wage laws, BRILLIANT.

Does anybody here actually think that it's right for one person to be earning 531 times more than somebody else?

yes.


Should we introduce maximum wage laws while raising minimum wage laws?

i wouldn't mind raising minimum wage laws, but i would not support any kind of maximum wage cap in any situation.


Should we abolish minimum wage laws and let the market sort itself out?

we could. personally i don't think that's a good idea right now, but i would not necessarily object to moving toward that for the future.


Should we shoot a bunch of random people and claim Charles Manson told us to do it?

probably not, unless our goal is to be sent to prison as quickly as possible. if that is the goal, then your proposed strategy would be quite effective; we might want to target children, the handicapped, or pregnant women if we really want to get to jail very very quickly.


C'mon people. I especially want to hear anarchocapitalists' and conservatives' opinions on this subject.

oops, i'm neither. but now that i reached the end of typing this i might as well post it.

rofl abolish minimum wage laws, BRILLIANT.

I think the charlie manson suggestion makes more sense, doesnt it?

I think the charlie manson suggestion makes more sense, doesnt it?
in my opinion, it makes the manson idea look sane

rofl - we should not introduce maximum wage laws! What would be the point in striving to do something properly? Because you like your job?? ha ha ha.

- not really serious.

For the benefit of the Americans here, I'm NOT a communist. But I believe that the wage gap should definitely be shrunken. Oh, and British house prices should go down, I want one.

One of the problems with human beings is that many of them are greedy. They seem to believe that money is the only acceptable measure of the worth of a human being. Some of these are the same sort of people who would have joined the conquerors of history in pillaging and looting, or would have been the conquerors themselves. Providing a way for this sort to accumulate vast wealth helps to keep their even more base instincts from destroying more than just their own character.

In addition, it's virtually impossible to undertake massive projects ( urban development, monumental dams, commercialization of space, etc. ) without accumulated wealth. There are only two sources of vast wealth that I know of: individuals or corporations, and government. Government is notorious for developing vast bureaucracies for major projects, running up the cost unnecessarily and causing the endless expansion of government.

Making allowances for human nature, particularly greed for money, seems to be only logical. Government can act as a control on abuses if sufficient numbers of people become agitated at abuses of power by the moneyed classes ( e.g. the "Trust Busting" activities of the US governement during the days of the "robber barons" ).

The introduction of a maximum wage would disrupt the workings of the free market in the same basic way that the minimum wage does now, so the same people who have advocated its abolishment will argue against the creation of a maximum wage. What these people don't realize is that a perfectly free market cannot exist as a result of human neurobiology and psychology. The human animal, at least at its more basic levels is a creature of dichotomies and can easily become focused on individual advancement without any concern for others. An ideal free market would work perfectly without any restrictions like a minimum or maximum wage, but to reconcile the imperfections of human beings as players in a free market governmental (or other) intervention is necessary. From the first appearance of a capitalistic free market, scholars have realized the need for an outside, omnipotent, regulating force to counteract the results of human simplicity and ignorance.

The introduction of a maximum wage would disrupt the workings of the free market in the same basic way that the minimum wage does now, so the same people who have advocated its abolishment will argue against the creation of a maximum wage. What these people don't realize is that a perfectly free market cannot exist as a result of human neurobiology and psychology. The human animal, at least at its more basic levels is a creature of dichotomies and can easily become focused on individual advancement without any concern for others. An ideal free market would work perfectly without any restrictions like a minimum or maximum wage, but to reconcile the imperfections of human beings as players in a free market governmental (or other) intervention is necessary. From the first appearance of a capitalistic free market, scholars have realized the need for an outside, omnipotent, regulating force to counteract the results of human simplicity and ignorance.

"Free market" is an oxymoron. But creating a "maximum wage" would make those who want "more" flee the Country, and make many businesses flee as well.

What people are failing to take into consideration is that not everyone is dealt the same hand intellectually and more importantly monetarily. A person will rarely break his or her class boundary and it seems unfair that someone born of priviledge should make millions of dollars a year because he inherited "Daddy's" self-sustaining oil company. There should be greater taxes on those that soak up a large amount of capital in the united states, because they are responsible for a much larger amount of the economic dynamics of the country and therefor are more influential in their policy changing abilities. Increase money for socialized programs in Health, Education, and social welfare and you will see that gap drop. When people are given the choice of taking their sick child to the doctor and paying the electric bill it becomes a catch-22. People shouldn't have to make those choices and children, despite how reckless or unfortunate their parents shouldn't have to pay the price by not having health care. If there is any law we should institute, it should be larger inheritance taxes. I mean come on, this is money soaked up out of the economic sector, stuck in a hole waiting for the heir of some Oil tycoon to dig it up and repeat the process.

I have a few people we could kill under the "Manson Plan".

"Free market" is an oxymoron. But creating a "maximum wage" would make those who want "more" flee the Country, and make many businesses flee as well.
as opposed to what they are doing anyway?

as opposed to what they are doing anyway?

As opposed to a mass exodus? Yes.

We seem to be getting a little off track. Is it morally right that one person makes the same amount in one day as another person does in nearly 18 months?

We seem to be getting a little off track. Is it morally right that one person makes the same amount in one day as another person does in nearly 18 months?

I suspect that "morality" has little if anything to do with it. "Practicality" seems to be the determining factor here, yes?

We seem to be getting a little off track. Is it morally right that one person makes the same amount in one day as another person does in nearly 18 months?
sure, i don't see anything inherently wrong with that situation. if the first person is making all that money through illegal means, like if they "make" their money by robbing banks or something, then THAT'S wrong, but i think there are plenty of legitimate situations in which one person should make more in a single day than another would make in 18 months.

"Free market" is an oxymoron. But creating a "maximum wage" would make those who want "more" flee the Country, and make many businesses flee as well.

Free market is not an oxymoron, and while you are right that realistically people would leave the country if a maximum wage was introduced when talking about the theory we can just assume that the maximum wage would be implemented globally and that it would therefor be inescapable.

Free market is not an oxymoron, and while you are right that realistically people would leave the country if a maximum wage was introduced when talking about the theory we can just assume that the maximum wage would be implemented globally and that it would therefor be inescapable.

I don't see that happening, but if it did, the predators would find a way around it, even if they had to go illegal.

I am against the ruthless capitalism that promotes such grotesque gaps in wages. There is no justification for this obscene concentration of wealth in the upper 1-2% of societies (not just in the US, but in Germany aswell), which is the reason for humans being unhappy. People who have billions upon billions usually do not even work themselves for the money. It works for itself generating more and more money.

sure, i don't see anything inherently wrong with that situation. if the first person is making all that money through illegal means, like if they "make" their money by robbing banks or something, then THAT'S wrong, but i think there are plenty of legitimate situations in which one person should make more in a single day than another would make in 18 months.
Are you serious? You think a CEO who spends his afternoons playing golf and his lunches at up-market bistros deserves to earn in one year what a guy stuck in his 6 by 6 cubicle nose up to the monitor will never be able to attain in his entire life?

The simplest way to implement a maximum wage would be to create a system whereby any company wishing to operate within your country (pick the UK as it's my home) has to conform to a global waging scheme, whereby the maximum global salary (CEOs, Directors, etc - stock deals and bonuses included) is no more than XXX times the lowest global salary (be it in production, delivery, whatever branch of the corporate empire. This would include sub-contraction, and, to be a pedant, sub-sub- and sub-sub-sub-contracting).

An example:

Nike wants to sell it's shoes in the UK. So in order to able to do this, their CEO (was Phil Knight last time i checked, so lets use him) salary can be no more than (let's say) 100 times more than the lowest paid worker (let's say this is a garment worker in Indonesia).

So if the garment worker earns $1 per day, Mr. Knight can't earn more than $100 per day. Note that in order to operate within the UK, Mr. Knight would have to conform to the pricing scheme regardless of his or the Indonesian garment workers location either geographically or with regards to tax.

Of course all these are numbers plucked from the ether, but the basic scheme is sound. Could also be used to ensure an end to sweatshop labour, by the UK passing a law which prevented companies who operate in the UK employing workers paid below wage X, and outlaws working conditions Y, Z and A, regardelss of the location of the worker, or the sub-contracted status. Fines based on a percentile scheme, starting low (say 10% of annual UK based turnover) and rising exponentially with multiple infractions.

Are you serious? You think a CEO who spends his afternoons playing golf and his lunches at up-market bistros deserves to earn in one year what a guy stuck in his 6 by 6 cubicle nose up to the monitor will never be able to attain in his entire life?

It may not be fair, but if we introduced a maximum wage law, no one would be properly motivated to succeed once they reached that maximum wage, and production would stagnate. The drive to be wealthy is probably the greatest incentive towards innovation.

It may not be fair, but if we introduced a maximum wage law, no one would be properly motivated to succeed once they reached that maximum wage, and production would stagnate. The drive to be wealthy is probably the greatest incentive towards innovation.
Not necesarilly, if they actually want to help their fellow man or even the other people working in the company they will keep working just as hard once they've hit the top of the wage ladder.

If they wanted to help their fellow man, they'd be giving away vast sums without the wage cap anyway (and many do).

Not necesarilly, if they actually want to help their fellow man or even the other people working in the company they will keep working just as hard once they've hit the top of the wage ladder.

Some people may be motivated by such altruistic goals, but certainly not everyone.

Some people may be motivated by such altruistic goals, but certainly not everyone.
For these selfish people the manson method will be employed. Hoho, I jest.
Seriously though, with a bit of encouragement and some positive influence, pretty much all people can become productive and helpful

For these selfish people the manson method will be employed. Hoho, I jest.
Seriously though, with a bit of encouragement and some positive influence, pretty much all people can become productive and helpful
greedy people can be productive and helpful. some of the most productive and helpful people in America are also among the greediest people in the world.

For these selfish people the manson method will be employed. Hoho, I jest.
Seriously though, with a bit of encouragement and some positive influence, pretty much all people can become productive and helpful

I obviously can't prove it, but I think if you enacted a maximum wage law, there would be far less people striving to innovate, and that would lead to stagnation.

greedy people can be productive and helpful. some of the most productive and helpful people in America are also among the greediest people in the world.
Yeah but I mean they can be productive and helpful without the need for reward. They can become more 'selfless', if you will

its not really a question of what the guys at the top make

its a question of if they leave enough for the rest of us.

in the US the middle class is doing fine. some areas have problems with unreasonably high house prices but that can be worked out

now

why arent you worried about the unfairness of how much YOU have compared to the starving refugees of the sudan?

Yeah but I mean they can be productive and helpful without the need for reward. They can become more 'selfless', if you will

You have a very optimistic view of human nature, I'll give you that.

Yeah but I mean they can be productive and helpful without the need for reward. They can become more 'selfless', if you will
who cares why they do it? some people give to charity because it makes them feel good, others because they feel God will be happy about it (or unhappy if they don't), and others because it is a great tax write-off. regardless of how the money gets there, it gets there. if the person giving in the spirit of generosity gives $100 and the greedy bastard gives $100 million, i'd say that greedy bastard was far more productive and helpful to society, and i don't think the people benefitting from his charity are really going to give much of a damn about his motives. especially if his greedy bastardness was what got him rich enough to give that $100 million.

I am against the ruthless capitalism that promotes such grotesque gaps in wages. There is no justification for this obscene concentration of wealth in the upper 1-2% of societies (not just in the US, but in Germany aswell), which is the reason for humans being unhappy. People who have billions upon billions usually do not even work themselves for the money. It works for itself generating more and more money.

I strongly disagree with your rationale for why humans are unhappy. Happiness need not be dependent on how much money you have. Happiness is a decision you make, and is entirely under your own control.

I strongly disagree with your rationale for why humans are unhappy. Happiness need not be dependent on how much money you have. Happiness is a decision you make, and is entirely under your own control.
indeed. all these socialist-types seem to be advancing the idea that money=happiness, which i have never found to be a direct relationship.

indeed. all these socialist-types seem to be advancing the idea that money=happiness, which i have never found to be a direct relationship.
I don't think money equals happiness at all. However, I support pseudo socialistic ideas for bringing an equality of opportunity- leveling the playing field somewhat, so to speak.

indeed. all these socialist-types seem to be advancing the idea that money=happiness, which i have never found to be a direct relationship.

Agreed. It's rather like trying to make yourself happy by being surrounded with all sorts of material possessions ... it's a process which never ends. How much is "enough?" How high is "up?"

Do the Socialists know that it is the poorest in a country who use Health Services etc the most? So how can it be "fair" that a rich person pays more for a service he will use less of?

(I don't have the statistics at hand to prove the above, but they're there.)

For these selfish people the manson method will be employed. Hoho, I jest.
Seriously though, with a bit of encouragement and some positive influence, pretty much all people can become productive and helpful

I don't believe it is the governments obligation to "encourage" anyone. If you honestly believe CEOs inheret their stature in a company with no experience, show me the evidence. If your talking about Bush yes he did try to start a company and it failed miserably. The service can not be done by any idiot, the American Presidency on the other hand is contested frequently by two idiots. This year is no surprise.

"China has more graduates than the US in chemistry in math." -John Kerry
Could it be that China has an astonomical population? And our population is going down? Don't think John Kerry it could lose you some votes.

I strongly disagree with your rationale for why humans are unhappy. Happiness need not be dependent on how much money you have. Happiness is a decision you make, and is entirely under your own control.

I agree totally and so does modern Psychology.

Why is it wrong for someone like lets say Bill Gates, who started life just like any of the rest of us who are not in the top 2% of wealth and became at one point the richest man in the world? And if you think that a CEO's life is nothing but golf and "doing lunch" I think you are sadly mistaken. Running a large company is definately no walk in the park there are pressures and responsibilities involved also. A maximum wage law is rediculous. It destroys the "American Dream" to start of with very little and make yourself rich. Though there may be some people who have inherited all their money, many also inherit responsibility of a business, and for every one person who inherited it all I am sure there are at least two who made it on their own. Think of the day traders for example.

There is absolutely no need for Gates and other ultra-rich people, to have billions of money in their bank accounts. It is obscene if wealth accumulates in this form with the upper 1-2% of societies, regardless which nationality. It's not just in the US, but there to the extreme because many corporations (and subsequently their CEOs) are based in the US. The work a CEO does or does not do, and especially the more and more apparent "take what you can" also if a CEO messes up or if they cut jobs en masse, does not justify exorbitant wages. The CEO work or manager work has left the dependency on performance a while ago. Instead, the upper ranks of corporations continue to raise their own wages disproportional without limit while laying off millions of people world wide who then need to live below the poverty line because they can't get the money to pay for food anymore. It is far from an optimal system, but the power-elite is eager to keep it that way to ensure that they can continue to rake in the profits for doing little to nothing that a lot of people could do just as well.

There is absolutely no need for Gates and other ultra-rich people, to have billions of money in their bank accounts. It is obscene if wealth accumulates in this form with the upper 1-2% of societies, regardless which nationality. It's not just in the US, but there to the extreme because many corporations (and subsequently their CEOs) are based in the US. The work a CEO does or does not do, and especially the more and more apparent "take what you can" also if a CEO messes up or if they cut jobs en masse, does not justify exorbitant wages. The CEO work or manager work has left the dependency on performance a while ago. Instead, the upper ranks of corporations continue to raise their own wages disproportional without limit while laying off millions of people world wide who then need to live below the poverty line because they can't get the money to pay for food anymore. It is far from an optimal system, but the power-elite is eager to keep it that way to ensure that they can continue to rake in the profits for doing little to nothing that a lot of people could do just as well.

You have the power to NOT buy their products/services, and to encourage others to do likewise. Granted, it's not as immediate as the power of money, but in the long term can be just as effective.

Oh really, I do? Guess what, I don't care. I am not unhappy with the corporations themselves or their products (though Mc Donald's deserves a special place in hell for their junkfood). I am unhappy with the shameless robbery CEOs/Managers do on "their" firms on the backs of the ordinary workers (drones).

Oh really, I do? Guess what, I don't care. I am not unhappy with the corporations themselves or their products (though Mc Donald's deserves a special place in hell for their junkfood). I am unhappy with the shameless robbery CEOs/Managers do on "their" firms on the backs of the ordinary workers (drones).
those "drones" can leave any time they please. they could choose to get educated, to advance, to get a new job. if they don't like their job then they should get a new one that makes them happier. and, alternatively, if they are happy enough with the job they have then there's no reason to complain that one of the CEOs has more money...or are you suggesting that we all define our personal happiness based on who has more stuff than we do?

Gigatron, first off I think you have a base misconception about just where Bill Gates net worth lies. It's not sitting in some bank account, it's invested in his own company and in others.

Second, why does a person need to justify their income to you or to anyone else. There is no question of moral vs. immoral when it comes to a person's wealth. You seem to claim that all people in the upper 2% of the net worth got their by "stepping on the backs" of the lowest wage earners. You can believe this, but it isn't the norm.

Everybody, in this country at least, has opportunities to climb whatever ladder they wish. It will take some longer, it will require some to work harder, but they can climb if they make the right choices.

Bill Gates contributes more to charity than any other person and at a far greater percentage. He is not a good example of greed in the upper 1%.

Bill Gates contributes more to charity than any other person and at a far greater percentage. He is not a good example of greed in the upper 1%.
Charity is all nice and fine. The issue is not how billionaires spend (a relatively tiny part of) their wealth, but how they obtained it in the first place or what the effects of exorbitant wages for CEOs/Managers are which lead to such masses of wealth in the hands of a few. Surely the amount of unemployment, not just in the US (Germany has about 11% unemployment officially), the CEOs/Managers usually do not deserve the wages they get for the failures they do which cost thousands of jobs.

Bill Gates contributes more to charity than any other person and at a far greater percentage. He is not a good example of greed in the upper 1%.
yeah, lets reference people like bush and cheney and other big tycoons

Let me tell you all about a man named Eugene Upper. He was homeless. He froze to death one Toronto night. Died.

Meanwhile, these ultra-rich people are going out and spending their money on designer underwear. Designer underwear. While people are dying.

Let me tell you all about a man named Eugene Upper. He was homeless. He froze to death one Toronto night. Died.

Meanwhile, these ultra-rich people are going out and spending their money on designer underwear. Designer underwear. While people are dying.

Many people, rich and poor, are innured to the suffering of others.

Let me tell you all about a man named Eugene Upper. He was homeless. He froze to death one Toronto night. Died.

Meanwhile, these ultra-rich people are going out and spending their money on designer underwear. Designer underwear. While people are dying.
no no, its not designer underwear any more. its designer ice cubes and pubic shavings (you think im kidding dont you? search gucci on google, see what you get)

no no, its not designer underwear any more. its designer ice cubes and pubic shavings (you think im kidding dont you? search gucci on google, see what you get)

Oh good grief! GROAN! :(

Many people, rich and poor, are innured to the suffering of others.

But does that mean we have to encourage that through inequality of income? The goal should be to make people more compassionate, not to make them throw up their hands in the air.

There should be a maximum wage of sorts, all the money you make over a certain amout should be donated to charity.

Let me tell you all about a man named Eugene Upper. He was homeless. He froze to death one Toronto night. Died.

Meanwhile, these ultra-rich people are going out and spending their money on designer underwear. Designer underwear. While people are dying.
so?

i met two kinds of people while i was homeless, and there were names for the two types: the hard-times and the lifers. hard-times are the people who are homeless because of some catastrophe, some sudden and inescapable problem that left them on the streets. hard-times are trying to get work, trying to fix their life, and are doing everything they can to get the hell out of the life. the only reason a hard-time says around the life for longer than a year or so is if further catastrophe occurs, or if they give up and decide to be lifers. lifers are the people who have been homeless for years and years, and who have no immediate plan for how they are ever going to stop being homeless.

i have a lot of respect for the hard-timers, because they are also the people who pretty much never would even accept a handout, let alone ask for one. i have zero respect for the lifers, because most of them are in their situation by choice, and they have no pride and therefore don't have any problem asking for handouts rather than working for themselves.

But does that mean we have to encourage that through inequality of income? The goal should be to make people more compassionate, not to make them throw up their hands in the air.

How does inequality of income encourage people to be indifferent to suffering?

The environment does not discriminate between hard-timers and lifers. Both types can die on the streets.

The environment does not discriminate between hard-timers and lifers. Both types can die on the streets.
yes, but hard-times are far, far less likely to do so. personal experience speaking here, obviously i don't have statistics on this because these classifications haven't been studied scientifically. but the only time i saw a hard-times die of exposure was during a really awful blizzard...and non-homeless people died in that blizzard, too.

How does inequality of income encourage people to be indifferent to suffering?

Eugene Upper died on the streets while the rich people were out buying designer underwear. Did they give enough of their money to charities to help him? No. They were too busy buying their designer underwear. Equality of income would mean Eugene Upper could have survived on the money they payed for their designer underwear.

These sorts of people who actually claim a maximum wage is anything but a miserable, stupid, wealth envious idea, or that working to better your life materially is somehow a moral issue, frankly, are either pathetic or terribly naive and ignorant. I think these beliefs is one of the determining factors of someone who HAS NEVER BEEN POOR or has never been independent (ie, those really, really smart and educated left wing 20 year old college students from the middle class who's mommy and daddy pay everything for them.) A few simple facts

Maximizing wage maximizes productivity. total economy killer. then everybody loses

and a progressive tax on income and the accumulation of wealth are two separate arguments. Income is earned, either through risk of investment or a service rendered. wealth accumulation tends to come from the appreciation of assets/material goods, stocks, etc. Gates started a company. that company got huge. he owned most of it......not income. progressive taxes are good, as long as it is not opppressive (over 40%, in my opinion). one would know this if they had the slightest economic education. too many people who are left wing do not.....which is why i think they can claim intelligence and still be left wing....the two tend to be mutually exlcusive, in practical, real world application. college professors with multiple degrees tend to be free market failures..but hey, they are "smart". and i have two advanced degrees with that opinion.

punative income tax rates don;t work. never have. in any society. the dead economy of the 70's can be directly teraced to overregulation and taxation. when repealed, our economy began a 17 year expansion that ended in 2000....not coincidence, sorry. chile is the most modern south american economy, for instance, with the highest standard of living, because of economi reforms pushed through by a dictator. a bad guy who did a good thing...now watch..the socialists are in charge, a/o 4 years ago. in 5 or 6 more the economy will be as bad as everybody else's in the region. growth ghas already slowed to a crawl. the euroleft style of governance and economic management? doesn.t work.

now, giving to charity is a civic duty all people of wealth should adhere to....the problem is, unlike a few decades ago, philanthropy went from being a respected thing to an expected thing. government, the most inefficient of all monolithic institutions, is now filling the charity gap due to "rights" invented in the past 80 years. no one starved during the depression. too may think everyone should have a middle class lifestyle of luxury (relative to the rest of the world outside the west) without realizing it ALWAYS has to be paid for.

finally, if you have to pick between paying the electric bill to buying groceries, as someone put on here for some reason, let's get to the root of the problem....WHY THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE HAVING CHILDREN!?!?!? i think the country should be doing more to educate and motivate these people to a benefit to society rather than a cost to society by investing in education and encouraging not breeding until at the very least nearly self sufficient. 2/3 of chuldren born into poverty in the US stay in poverty. a better solution than socializing the economy is socializing birth control for these people.

Lastly, i came from statistical poverty. i lived in an area 60% of the population was on state or federal assistance in some form. My parents never accepted a handout or a program and made it with 5 kids by working their tails off and being great examples, as many around me did. Want to know why i am unlikely to have a lot of pity for most people in these situations? most of them are there due 100% to their own behavior, nothing else. exactly what they deserve, actually. that;s why i say invest in free post secondary education for anyone earning under a certain amount or between the ages of 18 and 25, not handouts for anyone unless handicapped...and cut way back the social programs. SOCIAL JUSTICE IS GETTING WHAT YOU DESERVE, nothing more, nothing less, and punishing the achievers will kill your economy then your society. demanding more of your underachievers is the far more practical and intelligent way to do it, as long as the means for them to do it themselves are there. if you take away the motivation for people like me on up to even the super wealthy, who did it becasue it was their passion or to make their life better for their children, no one will bother. why work hard so someone who isn;t gets something? investing in the bottom, not subsidizing the bottom, is the only way that is economically feasible, or that has ever worked.

one last thing.....somebody on here said "there is not intellectual equality, so we have to help those who didn;t get much blah blah blah". aren;t these the folk that we should be encouraging not to breed, lol? as warm and fuzzy as it sounds, it is impossible to provide everything to everyone unless everyone IS DOING their fair share odf contributiong to said economy/society. dumbing down to the lowest common denominator never has worked! :headbang:

yes, but hard-times are far, far less likely to do so. personal experience speaking here, obviously i don't have statistics on this because these classifications haven't been studied scientifically. but the only time i saw a hard-times die of exposure was during a really awful blizzard...and non-homeless people died in that blizzard, too.

Why are the hard-timers less likely to die?

Why are the hard-timers less likely to die?
Because they are working to get out of the situation where they are the most vulnerable to the elements, where as the lifers are content(for lack of a better term) to remain as such.

That is one of those comments....

So, in this sillty discussion of eugene upper, did he want to live? did the buying of designer underwear directly contribute to his death? was it the purchase of them, or the receipts printed from said purchases? had eugene upper been getting the benefit of charities? had he ever gotten the benefit of what people do give to charities/churches? at what point is eugene responsible for his own life, not the designer underwear buyers being accused? what evidence do you have that anyone didn;t have compassion, and eugene upper refused to change his habits resulting in him being on said street to freeze to death? did eugene care if he froze? was he too drunk to realize he was freezing? forgive me, but i tend to assign responsability where it should be, not spreading around the utterly innocent, whether said accused have pity or not....how many folks you brought in off the street into your house? if you ever do, i hope you aren't robbed or harmed, odds are you will be.

i am sorry, i could go on and on, these sorts of comments are so inane. i am willing to bet eugene behaved in a manner that he was "warned" and "helped" many times yet he refused to listen. the designer underwear buyers are hereby acquitted, by reason of ridiculously stupid accusation.

Because they are working to get out of the situation where they are the most vulnerable to the elements, where as the lifers are content(for lack of a better term) to remain as such.

True, they are working on it. But during the year or so that they can't get out, they are still vulnerable. Maybe more lifers die on the streets because they have more "opportunity" (for lack of a better word) to die.

Why are the hard-timers less likely to die?
motivation, intelligence, savings, work ethic, lack of drug-addictions or other high-risk behaviors, etc. lots of reasons, really.

Should we abolish minimum wage laws and let the market sort itself out?


Yes, we should, it is responsible for the outsourcing of most lower paid jobs in the US.

That is one of those comments....

So, in this sillty discussion of eugene upper, did he want to live? did the buying of designer underwear directly contribute to his death? was it the purchase of them, or the receipts printed from said purchases? had eugene upper been getting the benefit of charities? had he ever gotten the benefit of what people do give to charities/churches? at what point is eugene responsible for his own life, not the designer underwear buyers being accused? what evidence do you have that anyone didn;t have compassion, and eugene upper refused to change his habits resulting in him being on said street to freeze to death? did eugene care if he froze? was he too drunk to realize he was freezing? forgive me, but i tend to assign responsability where it should be, not spreading around the utterly innocent, whether said accused have pity or not....how many folks you brought in off the street into your house? if you ever do, i hope you aren't robbed or harmed, odds are you will be.

i am sorry, i could go on and on, these sorts of comments are so inane. i am willing to bet eugene behaved in a manner that he was "warned" and "helped" many times yet he refused to listen. the designer underwear buyers are hereby acquitted, by reason of ridiculously stupid accusation.

exactly. it's not hard to stay ALIVE while homeless, unless there is a sudden disaster situation like a blizzard or critical heat wave or things like that. there are ample services available to get homeless people off the streets, they just have to be prepared that they can't be drunks if they want to use the shelters, and they can't just live at the shelters indefinitely. they will have to get a job and show that they are trying to get out of the life, and as long as they are then they won't have trouble finding places to help them.

lets try this again

its unlikely that IF you restricted the money given to the guy at the top that it would in any way affect the guy at the bottom.

if they had not paid that eisner guy $50million at disney (back in one of his good years), they would not have raised the wages of the janitors at disneyland. the extra money would have been paid out as dividends to the stockholders. (if disney pays dividends, is it publicly traded? oh well make it any obscenely paid CEO)

the 2 wage scales are unrelated. they respond to seperate economic pressures.

either the people at the bottom are being paid fairly or they arent. it has nothing to do with what their CEO is getting paid.

either the people at the bottom are being paid fairly or they arent. it has nothing to do with what their CEO is getting paid.
yup. whether or not i am receiving a fair wage for my work has nothing to do with if somebody else makes more money than i do.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0904/p21s1-wmcr.html

Its fairly long but damn interesting.

Does anybody here actually think that it's right for one person to be earning 531 times more than somebody else?

Should we introduce maximum wage laws while raising minimum wage laws?

Should we abolish minimum wage laws and let the market sort itself out?

Should we shoot a bunch of random people and claim Charles Manson told us to do it?

C'mon people. I especially want to hear anarchocapitalists' and conservatives' opinions on this subject.Your basic question is:

Can anybody justify the fact that some people are earning 531 times as much as some other people?

No. No one can justify that. They can offer reasons, judgements, comments, arguements, comments, whatever.

But no one can justify it.

For the benefit of the Americans here, I'm NOT a communist. But I believe that the wage gap should definitely be shrunken.

But if the wage gap shrank, there would be less to strive for, which kinda kicks the american way in the junk.



Steevo :headbang:

But if the wage gap shrank, there would be less to strive for, which kinda kicks the american way in the junk.



Steevo :headbang:
It would give people no reason to drag themselves up out of the morass of poverty and the reliance on welfare, creating an entire nation full of lazy, dependent people, it would turn america into Europe.

It would give people no reason to drag themselves up out of the morass of poverty and the reliance on welfare, creating an entire nation full of lazy, dependent people, it would turn america into Europe.
Lazy, fat, dependent people. I thought America is already like that?

Your basic question is:

Can anybody justify the fact that some people are earning 531 times as much as some other people?

No. No one can justify that. They can offer reasons, judgements, comments, arguements, comments, whatever.

But no one can justify it.
Because no justification is needed.

Because no justification is needed.

Well said but heres a justification.

"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'"
-Ayn Rand

Most CEOs work long hard weeks. Bill Gates by the way is not CEO of microsoft he owns microsoft. Just like Ted Turner is no longer CEO of Turner Enterprises. These people do not get these jobs through inheritence they are chosen by a board, which in turn is chosen by stockholders. The founders have every right to make what they get because none of those people would have jobs without their innovation and hard work. I see nothing unfair with this at all. Try working 45-65 hour weeks starting your own small business its tough. If it were as much of a cake walk as you say it is how aren't you in their position?

What about Belinda Stronach? She was the CEO of her father's company. She dropped out of college. Would she have gotten the job if it wasn't for her father?

Meanwhile, taxi drivers have Ph. D.'s.

Well said but heres a justification.

"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'"
-Ayn Rand

Most CEOs work long hard weeks. Bill Gates by the way is not CEO of microsoft he owns microsoft. Just like Ted Turner is no longer CEO of Turner Enterprises. These people do not get these jobs through inheritence they are chosen by a board, which in turn is chosen by stockholders. The founders have every right to make what they get because none of those people would have jobs without their innovation and hard work. I see nothing unfair with this at all. Try working 45-65 hour weeks starting your own small business its tough. If it were as much of a cake walk as you say it is how aren't you in their position?
Starting a busines requires starting capital and a somewhat successful business idea, preferrably for a product or a service that is not yet present in the local/regional/national/international market. With todays corporations pretty much covering every possible aspect of business, it is difficult to start new businesses and find new profitable ideas to grow from. If it was easy, I'd like to do it. But currently I'm a college student with nothing and not much of a future in Germany at least.