NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure there have been threads about this before. But I wasn't there, so they don't count. :D

I should've subdivided the poll options into whether the voter has had an education in economics or not. In case it isn't obvious, I'll readily admit that I know fairly little about economics.

But since when has that stopped me (or anyone else for that matter) from arguing (note that I didn’t say “debating”)? Then again, I'm not arguing; This is just another mind-wandering post.

I'm sure there have been threads about this before. But I wasn't there, so they don't count. :D

Topic: Do you think there should be maximum salary caps?

Guidelines: Don’t whine about the idea as being "communist" or "socialist". Economics is economics. Certain elements of the economic policy of a system may lean left or right, but at the end of the day, it's what works that counts.


Nope, MY rights - not yours!

Markets don't work effectively when you induce information-failures, such as price-caps.

I'm sure there have been threads about this before. But I wasn't there, so they don't count. :D

Topic: Do you think there should be maximum salary caps?

Guidelines: Don’t whine about the idea as being "communist" or "socialist". Economics is economics. Certain elements of the economic policy of a system may lean left or right, but at the end of the day, it's what works that counts.

Whether you want to admit it or not, that is a "communist" idea.

Nope, MY rights - not yours!

Markets don't work effectively when you induce information-failures, such as price-caps.

Fuck if I ever try to make a topic about economics again. :D

But what
a) about minimum wage?
b) if it was based off of the average income?

No. The market works these things out well enough on its own. The only reason to cap a salary is jealousy.

How would it work? No salary above a certain amount, or no salary can be a certain percentage more than the lowest paid worker? With the second you could still 'reach of the stars' you just wouldn't be as able to stand on peoples heads as you did it. At least as much...

I think with both there would eventually be loopholes that would actually isolate the haves even more. But that might just be cynicism.

it would be a way of addressing higher equality of outcome, but would do nothing to aid equality of opportunity...
assuming the goal of this economic policy would be to facilitate a more equal, in terms of income and perhaps, as an extention, wealth, then both issues need to be addressed.

i'm not saying the idea is flawed, but it would have to be part of a wider - arguably socialised - set of policies to work and not be 'unfair' in itself



edit: the real-world problem would be, if instigated, rich people fleeing the country or dumping their money in offshore accounts to avoid it.

No. The market works these things out well enough on its own. The only reason to cap a salary is jealousy.
I lost my faith in the 'market' to work things out on its own a few depressions ago...

Guidelines: Don’t whine about the idea as being "communist" or "socialist". Economics is economics. Certain elements of the economic policy of a system may lean left or right, but at the end of the day, it's what works that counts.
You make me smile.:)
It's still capitalism. It's still reality.

As for salary caps, I don't see them as necessary. After all, the more the rich make, the more they pay in taxes. Not to mention, where the excess money would go. Many wealthy people are somewhat unsure about what their final yearly income will be. It can depend on a number of things, such as the stock market. You would have to collect excess income as taxes, because an as you go estimation would be inaccurate for the wealthy.

Or are you simply talking of making it illegal for a company to pay any employee over a certain amount? In which case average worker salaries would rise drastically and we could probably expect a bit of inflation to occur.

I really don’t think it would be beneficial, and it sounds rather, anti-success to me. Somewhat spiteful perhaps.

Whether you want to admit it or not, that is a "communist" idea.

And welfare and minimum wage (and probably even child labor laws) are socialist ideas. I'm well aware of the stigma behind putting restrictions on how much a person can earn, but I'm also well aware of the fact that it's gotten way out of hand.

I lost my faith in the 'market' to work things out on its own a few depressions ago...
You're kind of old then, eh?:p

And welfare and minimum wage (and probably even child labor laws) are socialist ideas. I'm well aware of the stigma behind putting restrictions on how much a person can earn, but I'm also well aware of the fact that it's gotten way out of hand.
Uh, no they aren’t. I am a staunch capitalist, and I am in favor of all those things. Only capitalism can support welfare.

Fuck if I ever try to make a topic about economics again. :D

But what
a) about minimum wage?
b) if it was based off of the average income?


A] we typically see minimum-wages turning up in societies that have social security.
In that case, we already HAVE systematic information-failure. ( So it actually doesn't make things much worse in that case ).

Take the UK.
Income-based JSA: 55 quid. Housing benefits + polltax = 70 quid. Total = 125 per week. Toss in NHS-freebies (which arent free if you work ) , and it comes out about the same as working at the minimum wage.
working: (35 hours * 5 quid per hour ) * (1 - marginal taxation( 20%)).


B] What has that got to do with anything? It will probably sound rude, but, to me, that sounds like: what if it was based on price of petrol? It hasn't got anything to do with the matter at hand!

No. The market works these things out well enough on its own. The only reason to cap a salary is jealousy.

I really don’t think it would be beneficial, and it sounds rather, anti-success to me. Somewhat spiteful perhaps.

I come from a fairly well-off upper middle class family. It's neither spite nor jealousy. Nor is it guilt. It's pure disgust.

Aside from a handful of rich who actually give to charity out of the "kindness" of their hearts (philosophical argument to be avoided), I'm sick of people making more than they could ever reasonably need while others have to scrape by.
Nor do I think that increasing minimum wage or what not would help the situation, as that also would cause inflation.

I'm sure there have been threads about this before. But I wasn't there, so they don't count. :D

Topic: Do you think there should be maximum salary caps?

Guidelines: Don’t whine about the idea as being "communist" or "socialist". Economics is economics. Certain elements of the economic policy of a system may lean left or right, but at the end of the day, it's what works that counts.

Actually, this is one of the dumber economic ideas I've heard.

But, if you want to take a swing at something that works...um, maybe base it on the the pay of the people beneath you in the organiztion. This would still allow the average Fortune 500 CEO to make a vast amount of money...but might curb some of the worst abuses.

A flat cap either becomes a disincentive to productivity. Or, creates a situation where the super-wealthy have multiple "part-time" jobs that each pay the max. In the end, it would change very little in the distribution of pay or power.

Well, if you claim that this is an Economics issue, than the question answers itself: NO, there should be no limit. Everything is regulated by supply and demand; putting caps or floors on prices (salaries in the case of labour) disrupts supply and demand and can cause serious inefficiencies. The level of the disruptions would depend on the amount of the cap or the floor, and weather equilibrium is above or below this level -> unfortunately, this is very hard to predict/calculate.

I come from a fairly well-off upper middle class family. It's neither spite nor jealousy. Nor is it guilt. It's pure disgust.

Aside from a handful of rich who actually give to charity out of the "kindness" of their hearts (philosophical argument to be avoided), I'm sick of people making more than they could ever reasonably need while others have to scrape by.
Nor do I think that increasing minimum wage or what not would help the situation, as that also would cause inflation.
You assume that some people being rich makes others poor, which implies a finite amount of money, an artificial construct. If you are digusted by people getting rich because they are forcing others down, then that is another matter entirely, with nothing to do with salary caps.

I tend to prefer a very progressive taxation, that creates a logarithmic "real" income progression, but I don't oppose a cap on wages.

It's totally insane, highly unfair, inacceptable, and very damageable to the society to have some people earning in one month what people who work their all lives won't ever earn. Like those CEOs who take several THOUSANDS of years of minimal wage when they go to retirement...

Well I don't think there should be a cap, but certain people (many football players come to mind) are paid far more than they should. Of course, there is a demand for a person, and someone is willing to pay X amount of money to them for doing something, then that job must be important enough for them to want to pay that much. If a company or person wants to pay an extortionate amount of money to someone for doing something which isn't worth that much, they are stupid, and I guess that's how natural selection works.

You assume that some people being rich makes others poor, which implies a finite amount of money, an artificial construct. If you are digusted by people getting rich because they are forcing others down, then that is another matter entirely, with nothing to do with salary caps.


If you don't have a finite amount of money, you probably are living in Weimar anno 1923...

Excellent! You spot the fallacy of mixing normative and factual!

No. The market works these things out well enough on its own. The only reason to cap a salary is jealousy.

Sure, that's why some earn in a month what some who do hard work won't earn in their whole lives. That's why Bill Gates (who is just a thief and a lier, and never did anything really by himself) owns more than the 100 MILLIONS of poorest americans.

We may argue for long if market does or does not work for efficiency (even if there are many proof it doesn't), or for generating more total wealth. But no one can argue market is fair in wealth repartition.

If you don't have a finite amount of money, you probably are living in Weimar anno 1923...

Excellent! You spot the fallacy of mixing normative and factual!

Hahaha. Nice.

If you don't have a finite amount of money, you probably are living in Weimar anno 1923...
And perhaps there, my friend, you have stumbled across the reason why we can never have a redistributive system, where everyone has increased wealth. :)

Well I don't think there should be a cap, but certain people (many football players come to mind) are paid far more than they should. Of course, there is a demand for a person, and someone is willing to pay X amount of money to them for doing something, then that job must be important enough for them to want to pay that much. If a company or person wants to pay an extortionate amount of money to someone for doing something which isn't worth that much, they are stupid, and I guess that's how natural selection works.

Sounds like a little rich envy there. As long as people are willing to pay for the product [sports], then players saleries will continiue to go up. Simple supply and demand.

Certain top excecutives at Yahoo work for a $1 a year salary these days.. Of course, they do get stock options to compensate.. Which earns them hundreds of millions if they do their job well.
A salary cap doesn't actually mean that much to be honest.

You assume that some people being rich makes others poor, which implies a finite amount of money, an artificial construct. If you are digusted by people getting rich because they are forcing others down, then that is another matter entirely, with nothing to do with salary caps.

No one can produce in one month of work more wealth than another will create in one life full of work. So the one earning that ridiculously high amount of money is, inherently, taking wealth produced by others. Therefore, they are forcing others down.

If a company has enough money to pay hundred of millions to its CEO, it means the workers did a good job in producing/selling/..., and therefore, it should share the money with the workers. Or else, it's theft.

Alright, I'll bite.

Could someone with a knowledge of economics explain why a minimum wage cap isn't detrimental but a maximum salary cap is? I don't mean this question to be argumentative, I simply just don't know.

And perhaps there, my friend, you have stumbled across the reason why we can never have a redistributive system, where everyone has increased wealth. :)Well, not increased comparative wealth.. The difference being we can all be better off, just not all be better of than the rest of us..

Nor do I think that increasing minimum wage or what not would help the situation, as that also would cause inflation.
So you want to tax over a certain amount then? Because otherwise the money will just stay within companies and the worker's salaries will rise as if there was an increase in minimum wage and thus the inflation.
But no one can argue market is fair in wealth repartition.
And that is why we, along with members of every capitalist society ever to exist, (read any major civilization) have discussions like this.

A cap on wages isn't inherently bad, if done for the right reasons, but none of you have stated any such one. If you wanted to help the poor, the best way to go about it would be to decrease military spending so that social programs have more funding. The only reason that there is any significant amount of poverty in the US, is due to poor allocation of tax dollars and inefficient programs. We have the ability to end poverty in America with the tax dollars already brought in.

Certain top excecutives at Yahoo work for a $1 a year salary these days.. Of course, they do get stock options to compensate.. Which earns them hundreds of millions if they do their job well.
A salary cap doesn't actually mean that much to be honest.

Of course, a salary cap would have to consider everything income: not only salary, but stock options, "in nature" payment (housing, luxury car, ...) and so on.

Sounds like a little rich envy there. As long as people are willing to pay for the product [sports], then players saleries will continiue to go up. Simple supply and demand.

Exactly.

No one can produce in one month of work more wealth than another will create in one life full of work.
People can and do. Remember, everything under their control, is their work, because it probably wouldn't get done without them.
If a company has enough money to pay hundred of millions to its CEO, it means the workers did a good job in producing/selling/..., and therefore, it should share the money with the workers. Or else, it's theft.
Maybe some deserve a bigger piece of the pie, but there are far fewer people capable of running a company than there are capable of working in a factory, so the CEO gets paid a lot because of the rarity of his skills.

No one can produce in one month of work more wealth than another will create in one life full of work.I think with some luck, digging at the right spot, you might find gold or diamonds, easily worth more than the poorest farmer on earth ever makes in his lifetime (or several). And it wouldn't have to even take a month of digging.

But of course, in general you're absolutely right..
Worse yet, if CEOs do pisspoor jobs, they often get send off with millions in compensation. Even not doing their job and loosing the company 'wealth', gets them off wealthier than all the workers that get fired due to their mismanagement.

Sounds like a little rich envy there. As long as people are willing to pay for the product [sports], then players saleries will continiue to go up. Simple supply and demand.

Supply and demand is the economics law of the jungle. Why should be accept it ? We don't accept laws of the nature which say we have to be cold during winter, by warming our houses. We don't accept laws of physics saying we have to stick to the ground, by making planes. Why should we accept a law which is much less strong than the laws of physics ?

We can, as a society, work around many laws of physics and of nature. What do we wait to work around the insane law of supply and demand ?

The question is not "is this natural in capitalism ?", but "is this fair ?" "can we do better ?" "would the society work better if we add a workaround on this issue ?" . And the anwsers to those questions are "no", "yes" and "yes". So as we build planes to fight gravity when we need it, let's create laws and taxes to fight this law of supply and demand, when we need it.

Exactly.

(Reference to the sports star salary discussion)

Which is why that wasn't my main concern. The salaries of sports stars are supply and demand; the salaries of CEOs are seemingly arbitrary. How are you supposed to address the exorbitant amount of money they make without a seemingly draconian and communist salary cap?

As long as people are willing to pay for the product [sports], then players saleries will continiue to go up.If only they weren't so heavily subsidized, I wouldn't mind. But there is too much tax money spend on sports (not to mention cleaning up after the 'supporters'). If sports were to pay for itself, fine. But it doesn't.

Alright, I'll bite.

Could someone with a knowledge of economics explain why a minimum wage cap isn't detrimental but a maximum salary cap is? I don't mean this question to be argumentative, I simply just don't know.

Ok, I will give it a shot. A minimum wage is bad for two reasons that I can think of. First, it really hurts small businesses. Many small businesses just can't afford to absorb the higher pay rates and thus usually have to lay off people. Btw, small businesses employ more than all the corporations in the USA. Secondly, do you think any employer is going to just absorb the pay rate? No, they will pass it on to the consumer in higher prices. Who is hurt by higer prices? The poor are the most.

We don't accept laws of physics saying we have to stick to the ground, by making planes.There is no law of physics saying that. Nor are we breaking any laws of physics in flying, or in any other endeaver for that matter..

Of course, a salary cap would have to consider everything income: not only salary, but stock options, "in nature" payment (housing, luxury car, ...) and so on.That's tricky though, cause at the start stock options aren't actually worth much. They only become worth something once the value of the company goes up (and are completely worthless if it goes down).

There is no law of physics saying that. Nor are we breaking any laws of physics in flying, or in any other endeaver for that matter..

We work around the laws of physics, with artificial constructs using other laws of physics to compensate for gravity.

That's exactly what taxes or laws do in economy: they work around the "natural" ("law of the jungle") economics. That's what we call "civilization": taming the "natural" laws, making them serve our purpose, and not saying "it's natural law, so let's keep it".

If only they weren't so heavily subsidized, I wouldn't mind. But there is too much tax money spend on sports (not to mention cleaning up after the 'supporters'). If sports were to pay for itself, fine. But it doesn't.

Yes, you have a good point there, they are subsidized to a point so it is not true supply and demand. I agree with you, its time for the government to get out of the sports business. I am even a big sports fan.

Ok, I will give it a shot. A minimum wage is bad for two reasons that I can think of. First, it really hurts small businesses. Many small businesses just can't afford to absorb the higher pay rates and thus usually have to lay off people. Btw, small businesses employ more than all the corporations in the USA. Secondly, do you think any employer is going to just absorb the pay rate? No, they will pass it on to the consumer in higher prices. Who is hurt by higer prices? The poor are the most.

I had a hunch you'd think as such. I should've added yet another subdivision to the choices that asked what you thought of minimum wage.

That aside, doesn't your point ignore the fact that the current trend of retailer stores and chains that have overrun small businesses (with the high salary CEOs and chairmembers I'm complaining about, no less) are more affordable to those with lower incomes (except perhaps the ones that actually work at the stores)?

Supply and demand is the economics law of the jungle. Why should be accept it ? We don't accept laws of the nature which say we have to be cold during winter, by warming our houses. We don't accept laws of physics saying we have to stick to the ground, by making planes. Why should we accept a law which is much less strong than the laws of physics ?

We can, as a society, work around many laws of physics and of nature. What do we wait to work around the insane law of supply and demand ?

The question is not "is this natural in capitalism ?", but "is this fair ?" "can we do better ?" "would the society work better if we add a workaround on this issue ?" . And the anwsers to those questions are "no", "yes" and "yes". So as we build planes to fight gravity when we need it, let's create laws and taxes to fight this law of supply and demand, when we need it.

Supply and demand works so well, because it follows basic human nature. Basically, greed. So unless humans evolve to where they are not naturally greedy, supply and demand will be the rule. just my opinion.

Supply and demand works so well, because it follows basic human nature. Basically, greed. So unless humans evolve to where they are not naturally greedy, supply and demand will be the rule. just my opinion.

But you're treating it like a dogma. Capitalism is not the end all of economics. It's just a bunch of theories that can and should be constantly changed and innovated.

it would be a way of addressing higher equality of outcome, but would do nothing to aid equality of opportunity...
assuming the goal of this economic policy would be to facilitate a more equal, in terms of income and perhaps, as an extention, wealth, then both issues need to be addressed.

i'm not saying the idea is flawed, but it would have to be part of a wider - arguably socialised - set of policies to work and not be 'unfair' in itself



edit: the real-world problem would be, if instigated, rich people fleeing the country or dumping their money in offshore accounts to avoid it.

Yeah.

While I support it in principle, it isn't actually going to work. Also, what about people who have enough assets to accumulate millions of dollars in interest every year - or shareholders in huge corporations? A salary cap isn't going to affect them, and there is no reasonable way to put limitations on that within a market system.


Supply and demand works so well, because it follows basic human nature. Basically, greed.

That might be your nature, but either you're wrong, or i'm not human.

I had a hunch you'd think as such. I should've added yet another subdivision to the choices that asked what you thought of minimum wage.

That aside, doesn't your point ignore the fact that the current trend of retailer stores and chains that have overrun small businesses (with the high salary CEOs and chairmembers I'm complaining about, no less) are more affordable to those with lower incomes (except perhaps the ones that actually work at the stores)?

You can't think of it in just retail terms i.e. Walmart. All prices will go up. The company that makes nails charges more so it cost more to build a home. This makes it harder for the poor to buy a home. Cost of food production goes up making it more expensive to buy groceries. Minumum wage mostly hurts the poor it supposedly is helping.

No. The market works these things out well enough on its own. The only reason to cap a salary is jealousy.

Only reason not too is greed and selfishness.

Do people really need salaries of millions? Like football players, moviestars and pop stars?

Nope, MY rights - not yours!

Markets don't work effectively when you induce information-failures, such as price-caps.

Look's like you failed economics then.

Marx was an economic genius and basically everyone had a similar wage and it works.

Look's like you failed economics then.

Marx was an economic genius and basically everyone had a similar wage and it works.

ROLMFAO. Yeah, the Soviet Union did really really well. LMAO I can't stop laughing. Got love those commies. Great entertainment.

ROLMFAO. Yeah, the Soviet Union did really really well. LMAO I can't stop laughing. Got love those commies. Great entertainment.

Now, i'm certainly no defender of the USSR, but I often wonder how somewhere like the USA would fare on the economic front after having been devastated in WW1, a civil war, and then WW2 in some three decades.

The USA has been uniquely fortunate to be spared much of that.

Alright, I'll bite.

Could someone with a knowledge of economics explain why a minimum wage cap isn't detrimental but a maximum salary cap is? I don't mean this question to be argumentative, I simply just don't know.


Scroll a page back.
I think I explained it, with a bit of mathematics to it as well.

Look's like you failed economics then.

Marx was an economic genius and basically everyone had a similar wage and it works.

I've got a nice sheepskin.
What have you?

PS: Marx wax an idiot.

Marx was an idiot. There should be a progressive income tax with a basic income guarantee. The more a person gives back to society, the more money they should be allowed to make. People like Bill Gates deserve to make their money because they do something constructive with it.

Only reason not too is greed and selfishness.

Do people really need salaries of millions? Like football players, moviestars and pop stars?
That's a bit of a red herring, and in some of those cases would be uninforcable, since their incomes actually come from different sources. And really, you have to ask who can afford to pay them those salaries. That's a whole different strata of income.

Now, i'm certainly no defender of the USSR, but I often wonder how somewhere like the USA would fare on the economic front after having been devastated in WW1, a civil war, and then WW2 in some three decades.

The USA has been uniquely fortunate to be spared much of that.

The USA was in WWI and WWII. Anyways, I think that is a weak arugument. In the 1980's (almost 40 years after the end of WWII) the Soviet Union was doing horibly. I think having that much time should be enough to recover from those events.

You can't think of it in just retail terms i.e. Walmart. All prices will go up. The company that makes nails charges more so it cost more to build a home. This makes it harder for the poor to buy a home. Cost of food production goes up making it more expensive to buy groceries. Minumum wage mostly hurts the poor it supposedly is helping.So you really think that if the poor earned, say, half as much, they'd be able to afford a house sooner?
I'm not sure what minimum wage is set at, but at the very least people need to earn enough to have a) feed themselves and their family, b) cloth themselves and their family, c) have roof over their heads.

ROLMFAO. Yeah, the Soviet Union did really really well. LMAO I can't stop laughing. Got love those commies. Great entertainment.

Haha what a moron, the USSR was a totalitarian state and not a communist one.

Got to love these brainwashed fools.

The founders of America were socialist, like Ben Franklin but look at your government now trying to destory the freedom and liberty you were given. Looks like you lose out pal.

Haha what a fucktard, the USSR was a totalitarian state and not a communist one.

Got to love these brainwashed fools.

MODERATION-team!

So you really think that if the poor earned, say, half as much, they'd be able to afford a house sooner?
I'm not sure what minimum wage is set at, but at the very least people need to earn enough to have a) feed themselves and their family, b) cloth themselves and their family, c) have roof over their heads.

What hurts the poor the most? Price increases. If you raise the minimum wage all prices will go up. Do you really think a $1.00/hr or whatever raise will cover the price increase of all products one needs to live?

What hurts the poor the most? Price increases. If you raise the minimum wage all prices will go up. Do you really think a $1.00/hr or whatever raise will cover the price increase of all products one needs to live?

Let's put the minimum-wage at 5 USD/hour. ( I know its more, but.. )
Let's then raise it to 6 USD/hour.

What percentage would the price-increase be, according to you?

MODERATION-team!

Thanks for editing my post. If you notice above it, it says something different and no "edited such a such a time"

Haha what a moron, the USSR was a totalitarian state and not a communist one.

Got to love these brainwashed fools.

The founders of America were socialist, like Ben Franklin but look at your government now trying to destory the freedom and liberty you were given. Looks like you lose out pal.

Their economics system was based on communism and your buddy Marx's ideas. So we got a great example of what a dumba## Marx was. Thanks for the entertainment though. :D

What hurts the poor the most? Price increases. If you raise the minimum wage all prices will go up. Do you really think a $1.00/hr or whatever raise will cover the price increase of all products one needs to live?
This always bothers me because it assumes that all products and services are built extensivly on minimum wage labor. McDonalds actually doesn't even have pay minimum wage (around here at least).

This always takes with it the tacit implication that there is a huge, market affecting segment that is earning minimum wage and that if they are given slightly more buying power then it will throw the economy in chaos. If there is such a large segment making the minimum wage, that in itself is a big problem.

The USA was in WWI and WWII.

No shit!

...But it only fought one or two land battles on what might be considered its own homeland - the Aleutian islands. (being a part of Alaska and not an overseas territory.)

By contrast, Russia and the USSR took millions upon millions of casualties from 1914-1945, involved itself in the largest mechanised battles seen to history, had much of it's infrastructure annihilated and yet somehow still propelled itself to the status of a superpower.

France suffered less; did it manage to do the same post WW2 despite its capitalist economy? Not exactly.

Anyways, I think that is a weak arugument. In the 1980's (almost 40 years after the end of WWII) the Soviet Union was doing horibly. I think having that much time should be enough to recover from those events.

During the 1950s, the US feared it would be overtaken, such was the pace of the USSR's growth. Sure, it slowed down and imploded later, but I would argue that is the natural result of totalitarianism rather than explicitly left-wing economics.

As I said, i'm by no means a USSR apologist considering the brutal nature of it, but...

Thanks for editing my post. If you notice above it, it says something different and no "edited such a such a time"


Bulldust.
Enough witnesses saw it anyway.

Bulldust.
Enough witnesses saw it anyway.

Plus, edits are stored for moderator scrutiny anyway. ;)

Plus, edits are stored for moderator scrutiny anyway. ;)

*smiling*

If you placed a cap on salary your nation would suffer a "brain-drain" of entrepreneurial talent to more economically enlightened places. You would also be denying your Treasury tax revenue. if you really want to try and reduce the amount earned by the highest paid (which is an odd thing to want) then surely it is more effective to achieve this through a progessively increasing rate of taxtation. Although experience suggests that beyond a certain point increasing the rate of taxation actually results in less tax being collected.

This always bothers me because it assumes that all products and services are built extensivly on minimum wage labor. McDonalds actually doesn't even have pay minimum wage (around here at least).

This always takes with it the tacit implication that there is a huge, market affecting segment that is earning minimum wage and that if they are given slightly more buying power then it will throw the economy in chaos. If there is such a large segment making the minimum wage, that in itself is a big problem.

Ok, lets assume that there are few people making minimum wage and thus a increase would not affect prices much. Minimum wage still hurts the poor. It lowers the number of jobs available out there because it hurts small businesses. Small businesses will either have to lay off people or will be less willing or able to take on new employees. This is not good for the poor.

Ok, lets assume that there are few people making minimum wage and thus a increase would not affect prices much. Minimum wage still hurts the poor. It lowers the number of jobs available out there because it hurts small businesses. Small businesses will either have to lay off people or will be less willing or able to take on new employees. This is not good for the poor.

Will you please answer the question in post 60?

You make an assertion, and now please show us the math.

What hurts the poor the most? Price increases. If you raise the minimum wage all prices will go up. Do you really think a $1.00/hr or whatever raise will cover the price increase of all products one needs to live?If the only increase in prices is to compensate the raise in minimum wage, then it must. Moreso because a lot of people not on minimum wage pay for products in which those extra costs are compensated, minimum wagers must on average be better off (and other worse).
At the very worst, they'd simply be paying back their wage increase in extra product costs. But that could only happen if everyone was on minimum wage.

Scroll a page back.
I think I explained it, with a bit of mathematics to it as well.

I know. :(
I just had no clue at all what "information-failure" meant.

The imposition of a minimum wage and increases in the rate of any (realistic)minimum wage are by definition inflationary and place artificial limits on any business as to the number of people they can affford to employ. At the end of the day howver this is just one variable wne it comes to pricing and different sectors of the economy have different sensitivities to changes in wage costs therefore you would need a quite sophisiticated financial model to answer the point in post 60 or make so many assumptions as to mae your answer meaningless. In this case therefore the simple assertion that minimum wages assert an inflationary influence will have to suffice foir the purposes of this discussion.

And just, you know, to keep it fresh in people's minds, I'm by no means a marxist, communist, or socialist. I'm a person who loves to throw out ideas about things (often things I have no idea about), and who's had no formal teachings in economics.

So, you know, don't associate me with anyone who is spouting praise for marx.

Will you please answer the question in post 60?

You make an assertion, and now please show us the math.

come on, you know there is no way to measure that. It is an economic theory. If you don't want to believe it then don't.

come on, you know there is no way to measure that. It is an economic theory. If you don't want to believe it then don't.
Economic theories have a ton of math in them...

Millionaires shell out insane ammounts of taxes.

Ok here it is: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A MAXIMUM SALARY CAP.

Just think about it for 5 seconds.. if you have a business and your company starts earning far over the excess of what it usually does and you have paid your employees heaps and the sort.. what do you do with the excess? With a salary cap you cannot add anymore than what you already have (assuming u have the most money your allowed) and you have invested MASSES and MASSES of it into your company.. what the HELL do you do with the excess?

Give it to the government? Please.. as if anyone would ever consider even doing that.

P.S. I am a Social Democrat but this is just.. impossible.. and if possible, then just ridiculous to implement.

I know. :(
I just had no clue at all what "information-failure" meant.

Oh, ehm,

one of the most important functions of a ( good ) market is the relay of information.
Without that information-relay, the market cannot function properly.
( minor example: if I am selling apples for fish, and you are selling fish for apples, but we are not informed about eachothers intentions, we have no way of exchanging our goods. We'll both sit in our corners and go home with our unexchanged and rotting goods.)

Prices do ( apart from other functions ) impart information.
If you mess up the prices ( both bid and ask ) the exchange of information ceases to function properly.
That is what is called information-failure.


As an aside: many proponents of free markets tend to think that markets grow spontaneously, without government -interference. This is not so! Effective and efficient markets are the result of good government actions, combined with spontaneous factors! ( Even a short study of the history of market-towns in the UK would show you that quite conclusively. )

If either of the two ( the real, 'spontaneous' requirements AND the Good Government Factor ) is lacking, the Market will not function and prosper.

come on, you know there is no way to measure that. It is an economic theory. If you don't want to believe it then don't.


Sir, I think you are trying to bulldust your way out of proving your assertions.

Ok, lets assume that there are few people making minimum wage and thus a increase would not affect prices much. Minimum wage still hurts the poor. It lowers the number of jobs available out there because it hurts small businesses. Small businesses will either have to lay off people or will be less willing or able to take on new employees. This is not good for the poor.
In my interaction with small business' they do have not made up the bulk of minimum wage employers. I would have to see some sort of statistic that it's the small business' account for this much of the minumum wage job pool. Generally speaking business' tend not to hire unlesss they need someone, and a need is a need. Employment isn't out of good will.

Again, if business on this magnitude can't afford a minimum wage that itself is a problem.

Ok here it is: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A MAXIMUM SALARY CAP.

Just think about it for 5 seconds.. if you have a business and your company starts earning far over the excess of what it usually does and you have paid your employees heaps and the sort.. what do you do with the excess? With a salary cap you cannot add anymore than what you already have (assuming u have the most money your allowed) and you have invested MASSES and MASSES of it into your company.. what the HELL do you do with the excess?

Give it to the government? Please.. as if anyone would ever consider even doing that.

P.S. I am a Social Democrat but this is just.. impossible.. and if possible, then just ridiculous to implement.
The only way I can think it would be functional would be as a precentage relation to the lowest wage that the company makes. If the company makes a whole lot more then the CEO gets more, but so does the lowest earners in the company in order to maintain the gap. I don't know how functional that would be since I only came up with it when this thread came up, but there it is.

In my interaction with small business' they do have not made up the bulk of minimum wage employers. I would have to see some sort of statistic that it's the small business' account for this much of the minumum wage job pool. Generally speaking business' tend not to hire unlesss they need someone, and a need is a need. Employment isn't out of good will.

Again, if business on this magnitude can't afford a minimum wage that itself is a problem.

It also goes contrary to the logic - and functioning! - of free markets.
If the bidders ( business ) are forced, or allowed, to externalise the cost of the labour they consume, then the prices that businesses ask for goods and services will not accurately reflect the real costs, and this will lead to imploding markets, irrational behaviour and worse.

Its fun to see the hatred towards people that are well off...the fact is, the effect of the handful of high earning CEO's & entertainers is virtually zero. If you would re-distribute their earnings it would have absolutely no-effect on the wealth of the poor. Wealth has to be created, it does not fall from the sky. Re-distributing wealth through salary caps, excessive taxation and the likes has the only effect of demotivating those who are capable of bringing innovation and new creation of wealth, and the relocation of those people towards places in the world where they are not ticketed as "criminals" by the masses of idiots that crowd this planet.
Capitalism is about motivation towards goals in life, unlike communism/socialism which is about a life for which goals are planned for you by someone else (the self appointed government elite).

if you have a business and your company starts earning far over the excess of what it usually does and you have paid your employees heaps and the sort.. what do you do with the excess? With a salary cap you cannot add anymore than what you already have (assuming u have the most money your allowed) and you have invested MASSES and MASSES of it into your company.. what the HELL do you do with the excess?Haha..
Seriously, you can't think of anything better than to waste the money on paying CEOs?
First of all, excess profit goes to the shareholders. Simple as that. No matter how great the excess, it can always go to the shareholders. Aside from that, you can always reinvest more in a company, and you could also keep reserves, in case the tide turns.
Seriously, companies never have anything like 'excess money', not in their vocabulary anyway..

I don't oppose a maximum wage, but I have little faith that it would be applied properly.

And perhaps there, my friend, you have stumbled across the reason why we can never have a redistributive system, where everyone has increased wealth. :)I'm not certain that anyone ever argues for a redistributive system where everyone has increased wealth, they usually argue for a redistributive system because it would increase wealth for the majority of people.

Minimum wage still hurts the poor. It lowers the number of jobs available out there because it hurts small businesses. Small businesses will either have to lay off people or will be less willing or able to take on new employees. This is not good for the poor. Sure it is, because those poor who aren't being employed can receive unemployment or welfare. One person making minimum wage > Two people making $2 an hour.

I don't oppose a maximum wage, but I have little faith that it would be applied properly.

I'm not certain that anyone ever argues for a redistributive system where everyone has increased wealth, they usually argue for a redistributive system because it would increase wealth for the majority of people.

Sure it is, because those poor who aren't being employed can receive unemployment or welfare. One person making minimum wage > Two people making $2 an hour.


Which leads me to another aside: to introduce minimum-wages in a welfare-free environment would be catastrophic.
( and to have a welfare-free environment would be catastrophic as well. )

It also goes contrary to the logic - and functioning! - of free markets.
If the bidders ( business ) are forced, or allowed, to externalise the cost of the labour they consume, then the prices that businesses ask for goods and services will not accurately reflect the real costs, and this will lead to imploding markets.
Free markets had their chance with child labor, the company store, a few depressions, labor abuses and safety issues. Now it's a blend and that's pretty much the way of it.

It's amazing to be so up on the apparent 'failures' of communism and be so blind to that of the free market.

Free markets had their chance with child labor, the company store, a few depressions, labor abuses and safety issues. Now it's a blend and that's pretty much the way of it.

It's amazing to be so up on the apparent 'failures' of communism and be so blind to that of the free market.

I refer you to my post 79.
It is and remains my assertion that Free Markets cannot function properly without the Good Governance factor, and never have done so.

Its fun to see the hatred towards people that are well off...the fact is, the effect of the handful of high earning CEO's & entertainers is virtually zero. If you would re-distribute their earnings it would have absolutely no-effect on the wealth of the poor. Let's test that assumption.
Bill gates is valued at 50 billion dollar. There are some 300 million americans (not all of which poor). That'd amount to $166 for every american. And let me tell you, that's far from nothing to the poorest of them.
Add the rest of the american billionairs, and you're probably talking thousands of dollars per capita.

I don't oppose a maximum wage, but I have little faith that it would be applied properly.

I'm not certain that anyone ever argues for a redistributive system where everyone has increased wealth, they usually argue for a redistributive system because it would increase wealth for the majority of people.

Sure it is, because those poor who aren't being employed can receive unemployment or welfare. One person making minimum wage > Two people making $2 an hour.

Well, I guess our difference there would be the difference in our political views. To me, 2 people having a job is better than one.

WooHoo, we have almost doubled up the communist and rich envy folks.

Which leads me to another aside: to introduce minimum-wages in a welfare-free environment would be catastrophic.
( and to have a welfare-free environment would be catastrophic as well. )I can see how both would be part of the same package of laws.

Well, I guess our difference there would be the difference in our political views. To me, 2 people having a job is better than one.I suppose so. I don't view having a job as being a plus in and of itself, especially if having a job means you're making less than you would be without one.

Well, I guess our difference there would be the difference in our political views. To me, 2 people having a job is better than one.If they were both actually earning a living, sure..
$2 an hour doesn't make a living wage though, well, not around here anyway. Moving to as third world country might help.

No. The market works these things out well enough on its own. The only reason to cap a salary is jealousy.
Or because some people get 10 million dollars in bonus when the business has recorded a loss of several million, which I think we can agree on isn't very clever.

And to the OP: We have that. Doesn't work.

If they were both actually earning a living, sure..
$2 an hour doesn't make a living wage though, well, not around here anyway. Moving to as third world country might help.

If you really want to see an increase in wages, then your focus should be on creating jobs not minimum wage. Simple supply and demand again. If there are more jobs than there are people to fill them, then companies will have to compete for that labor in the form of higher wages or benifits.

If they were both actually earning a living, sure..
$2 an hour doesn't make a living wage though, well, not around here anyway. Moving to as third world country might help.

Not really necessary. Having 2dollar/hour wages will turn the richest country into a 3rd world country quickly enough...

'We expected nothing - and have received nothing in return!' Judge Judy in 'Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining'

If you really want to see an increase in wages, then you focus should be on creating jobs not minimum wage. Simple supply and demand again. If there are more jobs than there are people to fill them, then companies will have to compete for that labor in the form of higher wages of benifits.


Markets don't function if participants get rewarded for externalising costs...

A] we typically see minimum-wages turning up in societies that have social security.
In that case, we already HAVE systematic information-failure. ( So it actually doesn't make things much worse in that case ).

Take the UK.
Income-based JSA: 55 quid. Housing benefits + polltax = 70 quid. Total = 125 per week. Toss in NHS-freebies (which arent free if you work ) , and it comes out about the same as working at the minimum wage.
working: (35 hours * 5 quid per hour ) * (1 - marginal taxation( 20%)).


B] What has that got to do with anything? It will probably sound rude, but, to me, that sounds like: what if it was based on price of petrol? It hasn't got anything to do with the matter at hand!

I'm quoting this so I don't have to keep looking back and forth...

I'm afraid I still don't follow your post for A). Besides the unfamiliar math, I can't follow what information-failure (which you explained so expertly) has to do with minimum wage and social security.

As for B), my idea of relating maximum salary caps to average income was based on allowing it to vary with the changing economy.

Oh, ehm,

one of the most important functions of a ( good ) market is the relay of information.
Without that information-relay, the market cannot function properly.
( minor example: if I am selling apples for fish, and you are selling fish for apples, but we are not informed about eachothers intentions, we have no way of exchanging our goods. We'll both sit in our corners and go home with our unexchanged and rotting goods.)

Prices do ( apart from other functions ) impart information.
If you mess up the prices ( both bid and ask ) the exchange of information ceases to function properly.
That is what is called information-failure.


As an aside: many proponents of free markets tend to think that markets grow spontaneously, without government -interference. This is not so! Effective and efficient markets are the result of good government actions, combined with spontaneous factors! ( Even a short study of the history of market-towns in the UK would show you that quite conclusively. )

If either of the two ( the real, 'spontaneous' requirements AND the Good Government Factor ) is lacking, the Market will not function and prosper.
Pretty vague on what consititutes "good governance" would actually entail.

Further, I'll admit that I had to look up this whole 'information-failure' thing and I think you're applying it a bit liberally. From this site (http://www.woodgreen.oxon.sch.uk/economics/market_failure_-_info_failure.htm) it seems that the closest example I could find to yours was these two point:
Misunderstanding over the true costs or benefits of a product. E.g. drugs and higher education

Uncertainty about costs and benefits e.g. should young workers buying into pension schemes when we can only guess at economic conditions in 40 years time?§ Complex information e.g. choosing between makes of computers requires specialist knowledge of hardware. Do I buy an Apple or PC computer?
This seems to actually say that setting a minimum sets one of the more complex factors in setting the market and making market decisions. You know the cost of labor cannot go below X and the rest of the decisions can stem from there. I'm not seeing this as a case of information-failure from that description.

Markets don't function if participants get rewarded for externalising costs...

Could you give me an example please.

I'm quoting this so I don't have to keep looking back and forth...

I'm afraid I still don't follow your post for A). Besides the unfamiliar math, I can't follow what information-failure has to do with minimum wage and social security.

As for B), my idea of relating maximum salary caps to average income was based on allowing it to vary with the changing economy.


When you have social security, you already have information-failure.
The thing ( soc sec ) only occurs in an environment in which participants ( such as (would-be) workers ) in the market are allowed or forced to externalise the costs that they have to deal/live with.

You may think of Soc Sec as an anti-dumping measure. ( And that is pretty much how it works! )

When you have social security, you already have information-failure.
The thing ( soc sec ) only occurs in an environment in which participants ( such as (would-be) workers ) in the market are allowed or forced to externalise the costs that they have to deal/live with.

You may think of Soc Sec as an anti-dumping measure. ( And that is pretty much how it works! )

More doors opened than closed. Sorry.
Talk to me after I've finished my core requirements and can actually learn stuff I want to learn.

Could you give me an example please.

Sure.
Imagine you are a japanese car-maker.

Your Government gives you an export-subsidy of 1000USD per car.
You use this subsidy to lower your price in order to sell your cars better.

This means you have succesfully externalised 1000USD of your production-cost per car.

Others ( who don't get this subsidy ) don't externalise.

Consumers now buy their car based on information ( price, in this case ) which is flawed - and their decisions no longer influence the market in a effective and rational manner.

Pretty vague on what consititutes "good governance" would actually entail.

Further, I'll admit that I had to look up this whole 'information-failure' thing and I think you're applying it a bit liberally. From this site (http://www.woodgreen.oxon.sch.uk/economics/market_failure_-_info_failure.htm) it seems that the closest example I could find to yours was these two point:

This seems to actually say that setting a minimum sets one of the more complex factors in setting the market and making market decisions. You know the cost of labor cannot go below X and the rest of the decisions can stem from there. I'm not seeing this as a case of information-failure from that description.


True, and vague on purpose, since the requirements that Good Government has to fulfill are not constant.
It would be absurd to require of a Government around 1300 that it should protect the market from Spam.
It would be absurd to require of a Government around 2000 that it should nourish the market by establishing Convoys for rowing-vessels.

I am indeed applying the term information-failure quite liberally, since very few economists actually get the full scope of impact that the information-function of the Market. It is - oddly enough - the ( more conservative of their kind ) Sociologists that fully appreciate the information-function of the Market.

I don't think your example was particularly appropriate.
It pertains to only one specific example, when Information Failure is a systematic factor.
This would be like trying to explain the meaning of an epidemic by showing one sick patient. Sure, that patient suffers from the epidemic, but your audience will not gain any insight to the nature of epidemic in general! ( Your audience would stand a fair chance of thinking that 'epidemic' would mean 'one guy having the flu' )

I am indeed applying the term information-failure quite liberally, since very few economists actually get the full scope of impact that the information-function of the Market. It is - oddly enough - the ( more conservative of their kind ) Sociologists that fully appreciate the information-function of the Market.

Good on you. Unfortunately, the majority of people here have missed the statement behind your liberal use of the term.
Maybe you should use at Econ-Cons. Hehe. *imagines people dressed as money*

True, and vague on purpose, since the requirements that Good Government has to fulfill are not constant.
It would be absurd to require of a Government around 1300 that it should protect the market from Spam.
It would be absurd to require of a Government around 2000 that it should nourish the market by establishing Convoys for rowing-vessels.

I am indeed applying the term information-failure quite liberally, since very few economists actually get the full scope of impact that the information-function of the Market. It is - oddly enough - the ( more conservative of their kind ) Sociologists that fully appreciate the information-function of the Market.

I don't think your example was particularly appropriate.
I'm just missing part of that stretch based on what I've read about it. And we're not talking about Spam in the 1300s, but we are talking about the economy now.

If you really want to see an increase in wages, then your focus should be on creating jobs not minimum wage. Simple supply and demand again. If there are more jobs than there are people to fill them, then companies will have to compete for that labor in the form of higher wages or benifits.Or they move department to low wage countries with high unemployment.
Supply and demand may sound nice, but only you have something to supply or are in demand. Natural selection also sounds nice, untill you're eaten by a tiger.

I'm just missing part of that stretch based on what I've read about it. And we're not talking about Spam in the 1300s, but we are talking about the economy now.


Good Governance is a historical factor.
You are unlikely to get its impact when you look at one specific moment in time ( one specific set of circumstances ), when the main business of Good Governance is the creation of circumstances that allow Markets to coordinate social interaction.

If you look and think in terms of 'now', the concept will evade you altogether.

Good on you. Unfortunately, the majority of people here have missed the statement behind your liberal use of the term.
Maybe you should use at Econ-Cons. Hehe. *imagines people dressed as money*

*shrug*
They ( the eco-cons ) believe that the purpose of money is the accumulation of it.
Those who made/invented 'data'-money ( such as central bankers ) did so in order to facilitate social/political/economical coordination.
Tools - not goals per se.

Or they move department to low wage countries with high unemployment.
Supply and demand may sound nice, but only you have something to supply or are in demand. Natural selection also sounds nice, untill you're eaten by a tiger.

Only if it is for unskilled labor. I don't think Boeing is going to move to a 3rd world nation to build aircraft.

Good Governance is a historical factor.
You are unlikely to get its impact when you look at one specific moment in time ( one specific set of circumstances ), when the main business of Good Governance is the creation of circumstances that allow Markets to coordinate social interaction.

If you look and think in terms of 'now', the concept will evade you altogether.
Seems too much like an out. "It was governance that screwed us." If it's only a hindsight factor then what's the point of mentioning it? It doesn't really put an answer one way or another on caps or minimum wage.

Only if it is for unskilled labor. I don't think Boeing is going to move to a 3rd world nation to build aircraft.Even skilled labour can be cheaper in other countries. A lot of programming is outsourced, for example.
And even so, if it were just unskilled work, that'd still be a problem for our unskilled unemployed. And don't they make up the better part of poor?

Seems too much like an out. "It was governance that screwed us." If it's only a hindsight factor then what's the point of mentioning it? It doesn't really put an answer one way or another on caps or minimum wage.

It is not a hindsight factor.
*shrug*
Try studying the development of the Cinque Ports.
But it does a VERY long time to work.

One of the most important thing that Good Governance does now is the creation of trust as a social lubricant. The FRB would be a great example of a trust-creating mechanism.
But enough of that! Plenty for you to learn yourself.

I keep thinking that you wish me to directly link good governance and price-caps.
I see no need to do so, since we already have explained caps.

It is not a hindsight factor.
*shrug*
Try studying the development of the Cinque Ports.
But it does a VERY long time to work.

One of the most important thing that Good Governance does now is the creation of trust as a social lubricant. The FRB would be a great example of a trust-creating mechanism.
But enough of that! Plenty for you to learn yourself.

I keep thinking that you wish me to directly link good governance and price-caps.
I see no need to do so, since we already have explained caps.
I expect you to link them to your arguments rather than toss terms about. I'm on the internet and a college graduate, I'm not going to be 'dazzled' with terms and references-what I don't know I can look up and I'm not starting from zero on my understanding. I don't want to see the terms repeated, I want them applied to your argument.

*shrug*
They ( the eco-cons ) believe that the purpose of money is the accumulation of it.
Those who made/invented 'data'-money ( such as central bankers ) did so in order to facilitate social/political/economical coordination.
Tools - not goals per se.

Actually I meant Econ-Con as in "Economics Convention", cp. Scifi and Anime Conventions. What I meant was, besides academia, I doubt you'll find many people that you can talk to share with you what seems to be substantial knowledge on the topic.

I voted for a salary cap. However, this should be understood as a simplification of a more articulated position, which I try to clarify in the following.
I am not in favour of a salary cap strictly speaking. I am in favour of a strongly progressive taxation: high incomes should be taxed at high rates. The rationale for that relies in the lowering of the marginal benefit of high salary, and a minimum of social justice.

High salaries are usually justified as incentives for outstanding workers: estraordinary results should be extraordinarily rewarded. However, it is hard to maintain that someone who is not allowed to earn more than, say, 3 million dollars per year is not properly incentived. I guess that Tiger Woods or Julia Roberts could live with some bucks less.

I would apply a tax rate > 60% for salary bands over 1M$ per year, and increasing. This is not a salary cap, strictly speaking; however would probably have similar effects.

I expect you to link them to your arguments rather than toss terms about. I'm on the internet and a college graduate, I'm not going to be 'dazzled' with terms and references-what I don't know I can look up and I'm not starting from zero on my understanding. I don't want to see the terms repeated, I want them applied to your argument.


The lower cap has been explained already.
The upper cap has been explained as well.

Which part was not clear?

EDIT: I'm assuming that the term and meaning of Cinque Ports is known to anyone who has studied english history.
I'm assuming that english history is necessary in order to understand the development of markets in the anglo-saxon world.

Actually I meant Econ-Con as in "Economics Convention", cp. Scifi and Anime Conventions. What I meant was, besides academia, I doubt you'll find many people that you can talk to share with you what seems to be substantial knowledge on the topic.

*shrugs*
Since my own focus is on other subjects AND the current ( economic ) system we have pretty much suits the requirements, I would not find that overly interesting for an extended period of time.

I voted for a salary cap. However, this should be understood as a simplification of a more articulated position, which I try to clarify in the following.
I am not in favour of a salary cap strictly speaking. I am in favour of a strongly progressive taxation: high incomes should be taxed at high rates. The rationale for that relies in the lowering of the marginal benefit of high salary, and a minimum of social justice.

High salaries are usually justified as incentives for outstanding workers: estraordinary results should be extraordinarily rewarded. However, it is hard to maintain that someone who is not allowed to earn more than, say, 3 million dollars per year is not properly incentived. I guess that Tiger Woods or Julia Roberts could live with some bucks less.

I would apply a tax rate > 60% for salary bands over 1M$ per year, and increasing. This is not a salary cap, strictly speaking; however would probably have similar effects.
Athletes and actors are a total red herring. If you look here (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/54/Rank_2.html) you'll see that the first time an entertainment person appears on the list of the top 400 it's in the 40s and it's David Geffen.

EDIT: In the top 200 the only other entertainment person is Stephen Spielberg, and the only atheltic one I saw (accounting for personal error) suprised me, in that it was 197 & 198 and it was Auto Racing, James and William France. (no idea who they are. I'm going to look them up but not post results because it doesn't matter.)

Of course, there is no way for someone who can earn more than 3 Million per year to move ofshore, or to move components of wealth from the personal income category to capital gains category or anything, is there?

( Another reason why capping personal income doesn't strike me as sensible. )

The lower cap has been explained already.
The upper cap has been explained as well.

Which part was not clear?

EDIT: I'm assuming that the term and meaning of Cinque Ports is known to anyone who has studied english history.
I'm assuming that english history is necessary in order to understand the development of markets in the anglo-saxon world.
I do not see the connection you are making, nor how you stretch the terms you've dropped to apply. I'm sorry, you have not crafted a convincing argument nor answered the questions satisfactorily.

And no, that's not what I was refering to. I was refering to the other concepts that you have introduced and not tied successfully to your argument. It was in reaction to the fact that you more often repeat them then apply them to the specific discussion.

If you say something doesn't work because of the Purple Fuzzy Traction Bar, it is not enough to explain an abstract of how the Purple Fuzzy Traction Bar works, but more importantly how the Purple Fuzzy Traction Bar effects this specific instance. I have found your explinations laking in specific relivance.

I do not see the connection you are making, nor how you stretch the terms you've dropped to apply. I'm sorry, you have not crafted a convincing argument nor answered the questions satisfactorily.

And no, that's not what I was refering to. I was refering to the other concepts that you have introduced and not tied successfully to your argument. It was in reaction to the fact that you more often repeat them then apply them to the specific discussion.

If you say something doesn't work because of the Purple Fuzzy Traction Bar, it is not enough to explain an abstract of how the Purple Fuzzy Traction Bar works, but more importantly how the Purple Fuzzy Traction Bar effects this specific instance. I have found your explinations laking in specific relivance.

I suppose that happens with 'asides'. Asides don't have to be relevant. Their purposes usually are otherwise, such as illustration, or clarification of a general stance.

Now, to return to the question at hand:
A] in what way did I not explain why the combo of Soc Sec and Minimum Wage works out as it does?
B] Have I not made it clear that I oppose upper wage caps?
C] In what way is it not clear that information-failure leads to ineffective or inefficient markets?

Athletes and actors are a total red herring. If you look here (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/54/Rank_2.html) you'll see that the first time an entertainment person appears on the list of the top 400 it's in the 40s and it's David Geffen.

EDIT: In the top 200 the only other entertainment person is Stephen Spielberg, and the only atheltic one I saw (accounting for personal error) suprised me, in that it was 197 & 198 and it was Auto Racing, James and William France. (no idea who they are. I'm going to look them up but not post results because it doesn't matter.)You missed George Lucas (Star Wars) at 61 and Haim Saban (TV) at 78
And I wouldn't hold my breath that there aren't more..

You missed George Lucas (Star Wars) at 61 and Haim Saban (TV) at 78
And I wouldn't hold my breath that there aren't more..
Two more at 61 and 78 doesn't really undermine my point. And neither is an actor or an athlete.

I suppose that happens with 'asides'. Asides don't have to be relevant. Their purposes usually are otherwise, such as illustration, or clarification of a general stance.

Now, to return to the question at hand:
A] in what way did I not explain why the combo of Soc Sec and Minimum Wage works out as it does?
B] Have I not made it clear that I oppose upper wage caps?
C] In what way is it not clear that information-failure leads to ineffective or inefficient markets?
Well-
For A] you have not backed up the claims with raw statistics. You have said "Inflation" and I said that if there is that many people on minimum wage to create that disaster it was a problem in itself, then you said "small business won't hire" but did not demonstrate that small business made up enough of the minimum wage jobs for that effect.
B] Yes, you have. I fail to see the relivance of this question.
C]You have not connected information failure to minimum wage, you've simply said "Information failure" and then gave a definition of the term that has not been successfully linked to minimum wages.

I don't want the sound and fury, I want you to connect the dots you've put up.

Anyone who has had economics in high school knows the factors of production: land, labor, and capital. Capital has two dichotomies--physical capital and human capital. Human capital is consists of any job skills and education one has. The way capitalism works, if someone is willing to pay 200,000,000 for a boat (say Paul Allen) because his satisfaction for spending 200,000,000 meets or exceeds that amount of money then he can.Similarly, if a company values all of the human capital vested in a sole individual, then that company should be able to pay that individual any amount less than or equal to what they value their human capital. For instance, Yahoo's chief exec got something to the tune of 200,000,000 in 2005. That is just the way capitalism works, sorry for all of you commie liberals who think everyone should get paid the exact same for working on an oil drilling platform as running a oil company.

Well-
For A] you have not backed up the claims with raw statistics. You have said "Inflation" and I said that if there is that many people on minimum wage to create that disaster it was a problem in itself, then you said "small business won't hire" but did not demonstrate that small business made up enough of the minimum wage jobs for that effect.
B] Yes, you have. I fail to see the relivance of this question.
C]You have not connected information failure to minimum wage, you've simply said "Information failure" and then gave a definition of the term that has not been successfully linked to minimum wages.

I don't want the sound and fury, I want you to connect the dots you've put up.


A] Excuse me. I think you have confused me with my previous opponent, whose claims to that effect I was countering.
B] solved.
C] I don't quite follow. What I've said was that Minimum Wage ( Laws ) can only come about in the even of Information Failure. ( Which seems to be somewhat obvious: when markets work in perfection, no externalities exist, and there won't be a real need for a minimum wage. )

Anyone who has had economics in high school knows the factors of production: land, labor, and capital. Capital has two dichotomies--physical capital and human capital. Human capital is consists of any job skills and education one has. The way capitalism works, if someone is willing to pay 200,000,000 for a boat (say Paul Allen) because his satisfaction for spending 200,000,000 meets or exceeds that amount of money then he can.Similarly, if a company values all of the human capital vested in a sole individual, then that company should be able to pay that individual any amount less than or equal to what they value their human capital. For instance, Yahoo's chief exec got something to the tune of 200,000,000 in 2005. That is just the way capitalism works, sorry for all of you commie liberals who think everyone should get paid the exact same for working on an oil drilling platform as running a oil company.
"Everyone gets paid the same" is not the argument or the subject of discussion.

Let's test that assumption.
Bill gates is valued at 50 billion dollar. There are some 300 million americans (not all of which poor). That'd amount to $166 for every american. And let me tell you, that's far from nothing to the poorest of them.
Add the rest of the american billionairs, and you're probably talking thousands of dollars per capita.

Ok, I see you're not very familiar with the difference between "value" and "cash". Bill Gates is valued at 50 Billion...that includes all the stock (probably the biggest part of the 50 Billion) he owns, real estate & property, intangible assets (patents, brands).....last comes cash (even someone like Gates, does not have more than a few million in cash). In order to give the poor Americans that wealth, you would have to force Gates to sell everything, destroy his empire & possibly create huge problems for Microsoft and its thousands of employees all over the world. Do this to everyone who you consider "rich", you will see companies in big problems, stock markets plunge (which hurts everyone, also the common man who owns a few stocks); this all for a very small effect; lets even assume its a few thousand dollars -> remember that its a 1 time effect, its not a few thousand every year. You destroy a lot, for a 1 time bonus for the masses...when that bonus is finished, what do you do? You destroyed corporate America (they will have fled elsewhere in the world), your economy will be in deep poo, and the poor will be poor again after having spent everything on futile Chinese import goods. Think about it.

That is just the way capitalism worksSo what? What does 'how capitalism works' have to do with anything? If some one robbed you, and argued "well, that's just how highway robbery works" Would you suddenly accept that as a valid and fair economic system?
Capitalism can work in a lot of ways, and not all of them are pleasant for all people involved. Heck, highway robbery is in fact capitalism. Supply and demand. Demand money and/or supply bullets.

Ok, I see you're not very familiar with the difference between "value" and "cash". You'd be mistaken. But that is hardly the point anyway..

Besides, you could simple redistributed his stocks and other assets, rather than liquidising them all.

A] Excuse me. I think you have confused me with my previous opponent, whose claims to that effect I was countering.
B] solved.
C] I don't quite follow. What I've said was that Minimum Wage ( Laws ) can only come about in the even of Information Failure. ( Which seems to be somewhat obvious: when markets work in perfection, no externalities exist, and there won't be a real need for a minimum wage. )
For A that does appear to be the case. I was thinking of someone else and appologise.

You still haven't really made the connection. If it's "in a perfect world you wouldn't need minimum wage" then we know such a world does not exist and the point is lost. Further, the connection isn't neccisarilly made that without information failure minimums still would not need to be applied. It is still possible for a explotation of the work force with full information to the point where the worker can't afford the world he creates. (don't go crazy there, it's an oversimplification/metaphor that I don't want to chase the tail of for another 8 pages. Feel free to respond to it, but take it for what it is). The connection has not been made.

For A that does appear to be the case. I was thinking of someone else and appologise.

( happens, so never mind ;) )

You still haven't really made the connection. If it's "in a perfect world you wouldn't need minimum wage" then we know such a world does not exist and the point is lost. Further, the connection isn't neccisarilly made that without information failure minimums still would not need to be applied. It is still possible for a explotation of the work force with full information to the point where the worker can't afford the world he creates. (don't go crazy there, it's an oversimplification/metaphor that I don't want to chase the tail of for another 8 pages. Feel free to respond to it, but take it for what it is). The connection has not been made.

There are, IMHO, 3 cases in which minimum wage laws make sense.

1. If the lower price on which labour is offered, is the result of prospective sellers being able to get subsidies for offering their products ( working tax credits come to mind, or, say, charity offered from outside the system ).
Externalisation of costs by the prospective workers.

2. When the market is too fragmented for the various bidders and sellers to get good information about the market-as-a-whole.
( A case of Information-failure. )

3. When conditions are so that prospective workers are tempted to offer their services below total costs, but above marginal costs.
Dumping.

Note that in all 3 cases, buyers of services end up holding an incorrect ( and too low ) estimate of the value of the service known as labour.
They will systematically value it too low, and the result will spread throughout the system.
The price-information that we have is screwed and skewed, and we are then dealing with: Information Failure

And note that in all 3 cases, systematic relief can be obtained by introducing a miminum-price for labour, referred to as Minimum Wage.