NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

The foced giving to charity is imposed as a tax in some Islamic states, and rather takes away the point of giving.

A maximum wage does sound quite appealing though - it would probably get through in parliament (or equivalent) too, as only a tiny minority would really oppose it.

Wow. There are so many things wrong with this. Where to start...?

First of all, there is something wrong with a minimum wage, so your foundation's gone right from the start.
Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in.
That corporate greed is the corporation serving the wished of the shareholders (and that's a very large group of people). Furthermore, the CEO's don't just get to take that money; they're awarded it for being exceptionally good at what they do.
I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth.
They do. It's called taxes. Except, if you base it on wealth rather than income then you're encouraging wasteful spending as people spend money recklessly in order to avoid paying taxes on assets.
Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.
What's wrong with gluttony? You need some sort of basis for your condemnation of people's spending habits. What would be an appropriate thing on which to spend money?

Also, have you considered the possibility that this would drive all the rich people from your country?

Well, there is something wrong with minimum wage, but that's a different argument....

For practical reasons, once a CEO is making the maximum wage, say $10 million, he'd stop making more. Instead of expanding the company and making more jobs, he'd make enough for his own wage, and then stop. For example, Bill Gates would cut Microsoft massively, lay off well over half the employees, and work the minimum he has to to make $10 million. He can make no more, so why try? Most CEOs wouldn't keep working to expand, to produce more, to employ more. Another example, perhaps the CEO of Wal-Mart operates until he makes $10 million for the year. Then he shuts down the company until next January, so he doesn't have to come to work.

And then there's the problems of defining and preventing CEOs from going around it. Many CEOs get most of their earnings from their stocks. Then, it's likely a company would continue to produce at just as high a level, with a few mock-CEOs, who just stand there doing nothing, each earning $10 million of what would just go to the original CEO. In exchange, they give the CEO half of it under the table. The harsher government became at punishing going around the maximum wage law, the more these companies would do the first option I explained, just stop producing.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

Cuz they're greedy!

The most in demand guys get the best deal, if you slap a limit on it rather than a reasonable tax then they'll simply move to another country and so will large companies.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

Yeah, and then why don't we set the maximum wage and the minimum wage to be equal to each other, so that everyone is getting, say, $35,000 a year?

Oh wait! I know why. Because they tried that repeatedly in the twentieth century and it resulted in a miserable bloody mess each and every time.

It would be a good way of getting revenue, but I think it would probably end up as an economic disaster. :(

Wow. There are so many things wrong with this. Where to start...?

First of all, there is something wrong with a minimum wage, so your foundation's gone right from the start.
Like what? Making sure that everyone who works gets what they need?


That corporate greed is the corporation serving the wished of the shareholders (and that's a very large group of people). Furthermore, the CEO's don't just get to take that money; they're awarded it for being exceptionally good at what they do.

Does insider tradeing, infladed profits, and enron help the public. What about the people who cannot afford to have shares, or who do not invest? A corperation does not have only 1 responsiblity to deliver profits to its shareholders, it has the responsibility of making sure that the products it delivers are good and effective for the people. That's why government regulation in the economy is good; the government is often for us, and is always checked on to make sure they are doing what's right for us.


They do. It's called taxes. Except, if you base it on wealth rather than income then you're encouraging wasteful spending as people spend money recklessly in order to avoid paying taxes on assets.

I award you a point here, you are correct there.


What's wrong with gluttony? You need some sort of basis for your condemnation of people's spending habits. What would be an appropriate thing on which to spend money?

What's wrong with a little gluttony would be better. Gluttony is excess spending on things which you do not really need; so anything besides food water and shelter would be gluttony. Am I saying that we should not allow people to have luxery items? No. I'm just saying that we should make sure Mr. CEO does not spend a million dollars on a gold statue of himself while there are homeless people out there who cannot even afford food, and there are elderly people out there who have to decide beteween buying food or medicine.


Also, have you considered the possibility that this would drive all the rich people from your country?
THats why this owuld be a global policy.

Well, there is something wrong with minimum wage, but that's a different argument....

For practical reasons, once a CEO is making the maximum wage, say $10 million, he'd stop making more. Instead of expanding the company and making more jobs, he'd make enough for his own wage, and then stop. For example, Bill Gates would cut Microsoft massively, lay off well over half the employees, and work the minimum he has to to make $10 million. He can make no more, so why try? Most CEOs wouldn't keep working to expand, to produce more, to employ more. Another example, perhaps the CEO of Wal-Mart operates until he makes $10 million for the year. Then he shuts down the company until next January, so he doesn't have to come to work.

And then there's the problems of defining and preventing CEOs from going around it. Many CEOs get most of their earnings from their stocks. Then, it's likely a company would continue to produce at just as high a level, with a few mock-CEOs, who just stand there doing nothing, each earning $10 million of what would just go to the original CEO. In exchange, they give the CEO half of it under the table. The harsher government became at punishing going around the maximum wage law, the more these companies would do the first option I explained, just stop producing.

Yes, but a company is not run by one person, it is run by many; Maybe Mr Gates would stop working but the other people would work to make that 10million dollars. Also, maybe I should revise my idea: maybe the limit sould be on a percentage of hte company's profits, like 1% or 10 million dollars.

Like what? Making sure that everyone who works gets what they need?

Like setting a legal minimum at which I'm allowed to set the price of my own labor. It's a fellony for me to work for under $5.15 an hour, since I live in Ohio, it's soon to be $6.85.

Does insider tradeing, infladed profits, and enron help the public. What about the people who cannot afford to have shares, or who do not invest? A corperation does not have only 1 responsiblity to deliver profits to its shareholders, it has the responsibility of making sure that the products it delivers are good and effective for the people. That's why government regulation in the economy is good; the government is often for us, and is always checked on to make sure they are doing what's right for us.


I plan to get a degree in buisiness, amoung other things, and let me just say, it's not so I can help society. People go into buisiness for their own good, and would quickly go out if they didn't help anyone else. A coorperation doesn't even have a responsibility to give profits to its shareholders. It has no duty or responsibilty to society, if it did, going into buisness would be synonomous with going into slavery. People buy stock because the company will try to raise the stock price for its own good, not the shareholders.

What's wrong with a little gluttony would be better. Gluttony is excess spending on things which you do not really need; so anything besides food water and shelter would be gluttony. Am I saying that we should not allow people to have luxery items? No. I'm just saying that we should make sure Mr. CEO does not spend a million dollars on a gold statue of himself while there are homeless people out there who cannot even afford food, and there are elderly people out there who have to decide beteween buying food or medicine.

It's his million dollars to spend. Forcing him to give that money away so people can eat means the time he spent earning that money was time working as a slave. Regardless of how greedy he is, or how in need the poor are, it's still slavery and I will never support it.

Yes, but a company is not run by one person, it is run by many; Maybe Mr Gates would stop working but the other people would work to make that 10million dollars. Also, maybe I should revise my idea: maybe the limit sould be on a percentage of hte company's profits, like 1% or 10 million dollars.
That makes no sense.

Let me explain how these salaries work: executives making millions do not make that much money in a "salary". The base salary for most executives rarely exceeds the low 7 figures. What they make their money off of, and what most rich people these days make money off of, is simply stock ownership. When people talk about corporate greed, it isn't massive base salaries. It means that executives are given stock options (which basically say "you get 10,000 shares at $10 a share no matter what the market price is") and proceed to act in such a way that the only thing they are aiming for is moving up the market price so that they can trigger their stock options and make a fortune (i.e. if you get your shares for $10, and the market says they are worth $25, you make a massive profit).

Executives do not make large base salaries. They have stock options. You cannot really ban stock options because you'd create a massive disincentive for intelligent people to become executives. The market economy thrives because there is a huge incentive to be successful, i.e. massive monetary rewards. Remove those rewards and the economy collapses. Pure capitalism. Can you try and limit stock options, or make executives more accountable? Sure. But you can't really limit how much they make. Even if you remove stock options, that stock is still owned the owners of the company, so the profits the executives would have received simply goes to different shareholders instead.

A very simple argument against your initial point is this: A minimum wage creates a price floor that is (supposedly) supposed to give a living wage to every person. A maximum wage would create a price ceiling with no identifiable purpose, and one that would damage the economy.

Yes, but a company is not run by one person, it is run by many; Maybe Mr Gates would stop working but the other people would work to make that 10million dollars. Also, maybe I should revise my idea: maybe the limit sould be on a percentage of hte company's profits, like 1% or 10 million dollars.

And perhaps I should've specified this better. With already existing companies, they would be more likely not to change. How I should have put it, is that if this limit had existed, Wal-Mart would have never gone beyond 10 stores, or however many it took the CEO to reach $10 million. Companies are often dominated by one person, though not run, and even if there were, say, 10 equal owners, they company would stop when they made $100 million.

Like setting a legal minimum at which I'm allowed to set the price of my own labor. It's a fellony for me to work for under $5.15 an hour, since I live in Ohio, it's soon to be $6.85.

It just makes sure people are not taken advantage of with their own ignorance, and that a bunch of corperations cannot get together and make one job worth 2 dollars an hour. Lets say you were a carpender, and people would only pay you a dollar an hour for your job. Getting a new edcuation would cost too much money, so how would you put food on the table. It is not fair. This is why we need government regulation, to make sure that the huge corperations do not take advantage of the ignorant, the poor and the needy. Is it fair that these huge corperations live off the back of your labor?


I plan to get a degree in buisiness, amoung other things, and let me just say, it's not so I can help society. People go into buisiness for their own good, and would quickly go out if they didn't help anyone else. A coorperation doesn't even have a responsibility to give profits to its shareholders. It has no duty or responsibilty to society, if it did, going into buisness would be synonomous with going into slavery. People buy stock because the company will try to raise the stock price for its own good, not the shareholders.
This is why corperations are bad for society; everything that we need or want is given to us from the hand of someone who could really care less about you. This is why we have people dieing because of stupid, stupid poverty. What would be wrong with the government saying "ok, we know you produce products that people need and want, so we're going to make sure you do not set an excisive price on it or pay your employees so little they cannot survive."[/quote]

It's his million dollars to spend. Forcing him to give that money away so people can eat means the time he spent earning that money was time working as a slave. Regardless of how greedy he is, or how in need the poor are, it's still slavery and I will never support it.
Its not "slavery" because slavery is giving the person nothing for their work; hthe multimillionare would get more than he needs or wants, just people would have enough money to survive. Also, wages are unequal. Is it fair that person A gets 5.15dollars an hour for what he works and Person B gets 250 dollars an hour for what he works? Yes, I know Person B's work is probably more challeging, but not everybody has the clear opertunity to do that work, and person B will do anything possible to lower Person A's income. Not everybody can earn what they need, so it is the government's responsibility to take money from the people who do not need it and give to those who do.

The reason a maximum wage is bad is the same reason why the best basketball, baseball and hockey players in the world play for the NBA, MLB and NHL. Here in North America you can become very rich if you are good at putting the ball in the basket. It's why we have Dirk Nowitsky, Yao Ming and Hakkem Olajuwan. If we cap waged here then our best and brightest will go places that don't.

Well, there is something wrong with minimum wage, but that's a different argument....

For practical reasons, once a CEO is making the maximum wage, say $10 million, he'd stop making more. Instead of expanding the company and making more jobs, he'd make enough for his own wage, and then stop. For example, Bill Gates would cut Microsoft massively, lay off well over half the employees, and work the minimum he has to to make $10 million. He can make no more, so why try? Most CEOs wouldn't keep working to expand, to produce more, to employ more. Another example, perhaps the CEO of Wal-Mart operates until he makes $10 million for the year. Then he shuts down the company until next January, so he doesn't have to come to work.

And then there's the problems of defining and preventing CEOs from going around it. Many CEOs get most of their earnings from their stocks. Then, it's likely a company would continue to produce at just as high a level, with a few mock-CEOs, who just stand there doing nothing, each earning $10 million of what would just go to the original CEO. In exchange, they give the CEO half of it under the table. The harsher government became at punishing going around the maximum wage law, the more these companies would do the first option I explained, just stop producing.
What an incredible misunderstanding of business and the people that make business successful.
The only part that you've got almost right is that successful people expect to be compensated for their efforts.

The reason a maximum wage is bad is the same reason why the best basketball, baseball and hockey players in the world play for the NBA, MLB and NHL. Here in North America you can become very rich if you are good at putting the ball in the basket. It's why we have Dirk Nowitsky, Yao Ming and Hakkem Olajuwan. If we cap waged here then our best and brightest will go places that don't.

No, then the not as good player's salaries will go down too, giving more money to the footballteam, allowing them to lower prices.

Minimum wage, and welfare, are all pure evil, as are their proponents.

The fact is, government may not legitimately interfere in an agreement between employer and employee, no matter how many people want it to.

And my problems are my problems; your problems are your problems. It may not be the poor person's fault that he's poor--but it's his problem, not mine. I have no obligation to provide for others, just like others have no obligation to provide for me.

Maybe he needs my wealth more than I do. Tough shit. The fact is, I earned and he did not--therefore, I am the only one morally entitled to it. Need is not a valid claim.

No, then the not as good player's salaries will go down too, giving more money to the footballteam, allowing them to lower prices.

Why will that happen? Why will capping a big-league salary at $10,000,000 do anything? Don't you think the league will find ways to offer additional compensation so that they will get the better players? Cars, houses, cheerleaders ... there are all sorts of things that can be offered instead of salary.

Incidentally, this scenario is exactly what led to the Enron escapades. CEO's have had salaries capped at $1,000,000 for some time. In order to get to attract the better executives, other things have been offered. If you were a bright guy with a bunch of stock options, wouldn't you try as hard as you could to make those options worth more?

Minimum wage, and welfare, are all pure evil, as are their proponents.

The fact is, government may not legitimately interfere in an agreement between employer and employee, no matter how many people want it to.

And my problems are my problems; your problems are your problems. It may not be the poor person's fault that he's poor--but it's his problem, not mine. I have no obligation to provide for others, just like others have no obligation to provide for me.

Maybe he needs my wealth more than I do. Tough shit. The fact is, I earned and he did not--therefore, I am the only one morally entitled to it. Need is not a valid claim.
Amen, you should never have to be a slave to someone else and be coerced by your government to serve another's purpose.

And my problems are my problems; your problems are your problems. It may not be the poor person's fault that he's poor--but it's his problem, not mine. I have no obligation to provide for others, just like others have no obligation to provide for me.

Maybe he needs my wealth more than I do. Tough shit. The fact is, I earned and he did not--therefore, I am the only one morally entitled to it. Need is not a valid claim.

That's a little heartless, and given that most wealth comes from luck rather than effort, a little wide of the mark too.

Ooh, this ought to be good. :)

*reclines in chair, grabs root beer and bag of Cheetos*

That's a little heartless, and given that most wealth comes from luck rather than effort, a little wide of the mark too.
Damn, yet another incredibly ignorant statement. No wonder the Democrats are winning, people actually believe that people either win or lose "life's lottery".

It just makes sure people are not taken advantage of with their own ignorance, and that a bunch of corperations cannot get together and make one job worth 2 dollars an hour. Lets say you were a carpender, and people would only pay you a dollar an hour for your job. Getting a new edcuation would cost too much money, so how would you put food on the table. It is not fair. This is why we need government regulation, to make sure that the huge corperations do not take advantage of the ignorant, the poor and the needy. Is it fair that these huge corperations live off the back of your labor?

If people only wanted to pay me $1 an hour, who am I to say "No, you must pay me more or I will jail you"? Corperations live off of voluntary deals. If I am a carpenter, I will agree to work for the $1 they will give me, or not. If I do, that means I'm better off after then I was before.

Its not "slavery" because slavery is giving the person nothing for their work; hthe multimillionare would get more than he needs or wants, just people would have enough money to survive. Also, wages are unequal. Is it fair that person A gets 5.15dollars an hour for what he works and Person B gets 250 dollars an hour for what he works? Yes, I know Person B's work is probably more challeging, but not everybody has the clear opertunity to do that work, and person B will do anything possible to lower Person A's income. Not everybody can earn what they need, so it is the government's responsibility to take money from the people who do not need it and give to those who do.

Slaves in America were given food. Often, they were given wages for extra hours with which they could buy there freedoms (granted, it took decades of 80 hour weeks to do that, but that's irrelevent). It's still slavery. The products of their labor, wheather a giant ball of cotton, or millions of dollars, was stolen from them by force. The only argument that could be made that they are not slaves is that they have the right to quit. Still, work as a partial slave or go hungry isn't a good choice. The reason why it is fair, is that if I'm making $250 per hour, someone's paying me. My labor is worth that much to my employer, and he is willingly giving it to me in exchange for my labor. But if my freind works at McDonalds, his labor is hardly worth anything compared to mine. He only profits management $6 an hour, and is easily replacable, so they won't give him more. It's not unfair that I make more for the same time, because I'm mearly accepting a more lucrative deal than him. My employer offered it to me, I accepted.

Like what? Making sure that everyone who works gets what they need?
I would argue that simply working is insufficient to warrant that degree of compensation. Some things simply aren't worth doing to that extent.
Does insider tradeing, infladed profits, and enron help the public.
No, but those things are already against the law.
A corperation does not have only 1 responsiblity to deliver profits to its shareholders,
Wrong. That's the whole point of a corporation, and that is its one and only legitimate responsibility. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
it has the responsibility of making sure that the products it delivers are good and effective for the people.
No, that's the job of astute consumers (don't buy crap) or the government (prohibit fraud). The corporation is a wholly selfish entity.
That's why government regulation in the economy is good; the government is often for us, and is always checked on to make sure they are doing what's right for us.
Who is the government to decide what's right for me as an individual? Even if the majority agrees with the government, you're robbing the dissenters of any sort of choice.
Am I saying that we should not allow people to have luxery items? No. I'm just saying that we should make sure Mr. CEO does not spend a million dollars on a gold statue of himself while there are homeless people out there who cannot even afford food, and there are elderly people out there who have to decide beteween buying food or medicine.
But why not? Whose fault is it that those people are homeless? Never theirs? Plus, they serve as a nice object lesson in failure for the rest of the economy.
THats why this owuld be a global policy.
So you really do oppose freedom. Dissenters would have no recourse but to be governed by your infinite wisdom.

No, then the not as good player's salaries will go down too, giving more money to the footballteam, allowing them to lower prices.

Why did Dirk Nowitsky come to America? :confused: I thought it was because he could make much more money playing basketball here than in Germany. I'll be getting my Master's in petroleum geology in the next three years. When I am done, I will probably work in the US or Canada - unless you cap my wages in which case I'll go to a country that doesn't.

Damn, yet another incredibly ignorant statement. No wonder the Democrats are winning, people actually believe that people either win or lose "life's lottery".

Is it pure co-incidence that people who are born poor tend to stay poor? That rich parents tend to have rich children? That white people tend to do better than black people?

Damn, yet another incredibly ignorant statement. No wonder the Democrats are winning, people actually believe that people either win or lose "life's lottery".

The democrats are winning because the last six years have been an absolute catastrophy.

Minimum wage, and welfare, are all pure evil, as are their proponents.

The fact is, government may not legitimately interfere in an agreement between employer and employee, no matter how many people want it to.

And my problems are my problems; your problems are your problems. It may not be the poor person's fault that he's poor--but it's his problem, not mine. I have no obligation to provide for others, just like others have no obligation to provide for me.

Maybe he needs my wealth more than I do. Tough shit. The fact is, I earned and he did not--therefore, I am the only one morally entitled to it. Need is not a valid claim.

Thank you. What I may produce, through my own labor and through voluntary deals with others, is not yours. Mean? yes. Greedy? so what. Heartless? Sure. Lucky? Perhaps in some ways, in that I was born smarter then someone else, or I was born a harder worker. But if I can obtain it without coercing anyone, why won't you people let me?

Maximum wage legislation would quickly drive investors out of your market and into someone else's. It would be utterly impossible for any nation to maintain a viable economic footing with a policy like this.

Furthermore, it is not the government's job to tell me [or anyone else] what my labor is worth, or under what conditions it can be used. Maximum wage is precisely as ridiculous as minimum wage and for most of the same reasons.

And finally, the only reason that CEO has the money in the first place is because the public traded that money to him for whatever service he was offering. The idea that he should be forced to give it back is a blatant attempt to have one's cake and eat it too. "Forced charity" is a contradiction in terms.

Is it pure co-incidence that people who are born poor tend to stay poor? That rich parents tend to have rich children? That white people tend to do better than black people?

For one, the IQ of the average rich guy is higher then the average person in the ghetto. Smart parents are far more likely to have smart kids, and smart people are far more likely to succeed.

The other reason would be government schooling. Even if you're the next Albert Einstein, if you live in the ghetto and never learn to read, you're probably not going to suceed.

Is it pure co-incidence that people who are born poor tend to stay poor? That rich parents tend to have rich children? That white people tend to do better than black people?
Absolutely no coincidence at all. It is clearly a result of choices they make to commit crimes, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, live on welfare...any number of things. On the other hand, people that do well make good choices. Luck has nothing to do with it. Not even if you win the lottery, most winners don't do well in the long term.

Don't get me wrong. I think we need the poor. Someone has to buy lottery tickets so the State of Georgia will put my kids through college. People that can do math realize what a waste of time buying a lottery ticket is.

Absolutely no coincidence at all. It is clearly a result of choices they make to commit crimes, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, live on welfare...any number of things. On the other hand, people that do well make good choices. Luck has nothing to do with it. Not even if you win the lottery, most winners don't do well in the long term.

Don't get me wrong. I think we need the poor. Someone has to buy lottery tickets so the State of Georgia will put my kids through college. People that can do math realize what a waste of time buying a lottery ticket is.

I understand that choices lead to consequences, that is of no dispute whatsoever. What we can see, however, is that those who are born poor (and you have no say into what situation you are born) make less prudent choices then those who are born into a more affluent situation. Therefore we conclude that an external influence (i.e your upbringing) has an affect on your ability to get ahead in life.

Yeah, and then why don't we set the maximum wage and the minimum wage to be equal to each other, so that everyone is getting, say, $35,000 a year?

Oh wait! I know why. Because they tried that repeatedly in the twentieth century and it resulted in a miserable bloody mess each and every time.

QFT.

Absolutely no coincidence at all. It is clearly a result of choices they make to commit crimes, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, live on welfare...any number of things. On the other hand, people that do well make good choices. Luck has nothing to do with it. Not even if you win the lottery, most winners don't do well in the long term.
Right, so cultural conditioning doesn't exist, and everybody has equal access to education. Do you have a clue about how deluded by idealism you sound?

Right, so cultural conditioning doesn't exist, and everybody has equal access to education. Do you have a clue about how deluded by idealism you sound?
There's always an inbetween. Not every ghetto dweller is going to grow up to be a Rhodes Scholar. But not every one has to grow up on welfare, either. There are a lot of good trades that are just waiting for apprentices.

I'm not willing to write off people because they're poor or minority. They certainly need better teachers in a lot of schools, but if the students decide not to attend, what good will any number of teachers do? If the kids decide that selling drugs is better than reading the new text books we buy, how can they learn anything? It's still about decisions. Good or bad, all of us make them and that means we all make our own luck.

The foced giving to charity is imposed as a tax in some Islamic states, and rather takes away the point of giving.

A maximum wage does sound quite appealing though - it would probably get through in parliament (or equivalent) too, as only a tiny minority would really oppose it.

In America 80% of the population thinks that they are, or soon will be, among the top 5% of the income earners.

In America 80% of the population thinks that they are, or soon will be, among the top 5% of the income earners.

I've heard about this, I think it's one of the reasons Libertarianism has such appeal in the States. People expect to be rich and so they want to ensure that when their time comes they can live the high life. People buy into the American dream even when it's not going to work out for them.

There's always an inbetween. Not every ghetto dweller is going to grow up to be a Rhodes Scholar. But not every one has to grow up on welfare, either. There are a lot of good trades that are just waiting for apprentices.

No there aren't. Not anymore anyway. You have to be family to get a decent position in most trades with apprenticeships. And there's a lot of politics that determines if you can get a job or not. My brother apprenticed with the NYC bricklayers union but couldn't get any work because my father once had a fight with one of the union bosses.

If on the other hand there was more effort behind, and less stigma attached, to vocational schools, overseen by the department of labor as well as the bureau of labor and statistics to make sure that jobs skills offered were marketable, that would be great.

Otherwise you end up with for-profit schools that hype up the job prospects of their "career" training programs telling them that they can have "a high-paying career in Graphic Design."

No, then the not as good player's salaries will go down too, giving more money to the footballteam, allowing them to lower prices.
But why would they reduce prices? If I own the team and I'm selling all my tickets at $60 each, why would I ever reduce those prices as long as I'm selling all of the tickets? In fac,t if I'm selling all of my tickets, my prices are probably too low.

The price of my tickets is set by how much people will pay for them, not by how much money I need.

I've heard about this, I think it's one of the reasons Libertarianism has such appeal in the States. People expect to be rich and so they want to ensure that when their time comes they can live the high life. People buy into the American dream even when it's not going to work out for them.

You talk about foolishness and stupidity like they are recently discovered and little known phenomena.

In America 80% of the population thinks that they are, or soon will be, among the top 5% of the income earners.
That's the great thing about a free market system. Nearly all American can be rich. They can't all be rich, but they all can be rich.

Almost every American has the opportunity to become rich. That most of them never do it diesn't matter - the chance is there, and they know it. So they want that chance to persist.

That's the great thing about a free market system. Nearly all American can be rich. They can't all be rich, but they all can be rich.

Almost every American has the opportunity to become rich. That most of them never do it diesn't matter - the chance is there, and they know it. So they want that chance to persist.

It's idealistic beyond belief to claim America is a meritocracy. As a rule of thumb, people do not move anywhere as much as Libertarians would have you believe.

Take your favorite thing – be it reeses pieces, baseball games, whatever.

I think it should be banned. It is a waste of money – money spent on reeses pieces or baseball would be better spent if given to charities. So from now on, anyone who spent money buying reeses pieces or going to a baseball game will be forced to give 10% of their money to charities.

Just like the minimum wage – it is going to be very interesting from an economics point of view if the raise in the minimum wage were to get passed. Though why do things by such small steps… why don’t we just raise it to $100 an hour? We would completely eliminate poverty in one fell swoop.

An excellent article (original kudos to be directed at Europa Maxima). I'm quoting the whole thing, because it is important that people read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010.html
Old Money, New Money Flee France and Its Wealth Tax
By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 16, 2006; Page A12

PARIS -- Denis Payre, a self-described French jet-setter, built a successful high-tech company from scratch, then decided to quit at age 34 to spend more time in France with his wife and young children.

Instead, Payre said, he was pushed into exile by the French government, which sent him a tax bill of nearly $2.5 million on paper assets he couldn't cash in.

"They were asking me to pay taxes on money I didn't have," Payre said. "I had no choice but to leave the country."

Payre, who moved his family to neighboring Belgium eight years ago, is today part of a sizable community of rich expatriate French driven out by the world's highest tax bills on wealthy citizens. The exodus continues: On average, at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study.

At a time when France is struggling to stay competitive in an increasingly integrated world, business leaders say the country can't afford to make refugees of some of its most established business families. They include members of the Taittinger champagne empire, the Peugeot auto magnates and leading shareholders of dominant retailers Carrefour and Darty. Also going are members of a new generation of high-tech entrepreneurs.

Socialist leaders and some government officials argue that the rich are merely trying to shirk their social responsibilities by fleeing the country with their millions.

"France is penalizing success in a big way," argued Payre, who is now 43 and has started a new company in Brussels that he said did nearly $32 million in business this year. "The loss in income for the government is the smallest part. The big issue is the loss of all that creative energy this country is dying for."

Payre said that when he decided to leave his high-tech company, Business Objects, in 1997, he owned shares that were worth $110 million -- on paper. French tax authorities required Payre to pay a wealth tax of 2.2 percent on the shares, based on what the shares would have been worth had he sold them at the market's highest point.

But Payre said that he didn't have access to them because of stock market regulations that limited his ability to sell and that, in any case, a market dip had devalued the shares below that peak.

The wealth tax -- officially called the solidarity tax -- is collected on top of income, capital gains, inheritance and social security taxes. It's part of the reason France consistently ranks at the top of Forbes magazine's annual Tax Misery Index -- a global listing of the most heavily taxed nations.

Wealthy citizens' tax bills can be higher than their incomes, according to tax analysts. President Jacques Chirac's government attempted to rectify that disparity last year with changes intended to guarantee that no one would pay more than 60 percent of income in taxes. But many businesspeople say actual maximum tax rates still hover at around 72 percent.

France's tax structure is more than a means of supporting the nation's expensive cradle-to-grave social services. It is deeply rooted in the nation's history and psyche, dating to the French Revolution of 1789, when impoverished peasants overthrew an obscenely wealthy aristocracy and sent many of its members to the guillotine.

"The French Revolution was not about 'equality and fraternity,' as people like saying," said Pierre-Francois Taittinger, the 80-year-old former chief of Champagne Taittinger, one of France's most renowned family businesses, which sold its controlling shares to an American company last year for a reported $1.5 billion. "It was about getting rid of the ruling class. French people don't like the rich -- unless they are soccer players."

Taittinger, who helped create the champagne label that is synonymous with luxury worldwide, said the French tax system not only helped force the sale of his family company but scattered the 38 family members involved in the corporation.

"Half of my family left France because of taxes," said Taittinger, who remained in France and is now mayor of one of Paris's districts. "They now live in England, Belgium and other countries where they were warmly welcomed -- unlike here."

France's opposition Socialist Party leader Francois Hollande said recently that his party's -- and his country's -- opposition to proposals to lower high-income taxes has nothing to do with disdain for the wealthy. "I don't have anything against rich people, as such," Hollande said in a recent political debate. "They have the right to be rich. But I can't accept that the richest can have their taxes lowered."

"This tendency to take from the rich and give to the poor which is supposed to solve all the problems in France is ruining the country," said Alain Marchand, who left France six years ago and now has a London-based consulting business that helps relocate French business leaders and entrepreneurs in England and other countries. "That's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded vision of economic life."

Eric Pinchet, author of a French tax guide, estimates the wealth tax earns the government about $2.6 billion a year but has cost the country more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998.

Business organizations and financial consultants say members of the new generation of business school graduates and high-tech entrepreneurs -- who see the tax structure as penalizing not only individuals but also companies' ability to compete -- are especially likely to flee the taxation.

In France, employers are required to pay social security taxes equal to 48 percent of each employee's salary. Labor laws make it difficult and costly to fire incompetent workers. "The way the French state is organized makes it impossible for big family corporations to stay on French soil," said 44-year-old Virginie Taittinger, who moved to Brussels two years ago. "If you add up all the taxes an employer has to pay -- social taxes, employee taxes, the wealth tax, taxes on profit -- even a successful business has a hard time surviving."

The flight has been aided by business-friendly rules of the 25-nation European Union that protect cross-border commerce and by a proliferation of cheap airlines and high-speed trains. Brussels has become a major destination for business emigres, who set up shop in the French-speaking city and frequently visit Paris, which is only 80 minutes away by train.

Suzanne Belgeonne, who heads a Brussels real estate agency, Le Lion, said that in the past decade she has sold dozens of houses to French expatriates in the city's toniest neighborhoods. The sales have risen "significantly" in the past four years, she said, as French buyers help fuel a property boom, especially in exclusive suburban enclaves of luxury villas and broad lawns.

"Rich French people like sticking together in the same neighborhoods," said Belgeonne.

It's idealistic beyond belief to claim America is a meritocracy. As a rule of thumb, people do not move anywhere as much as Libertarians would have you believe.
I didn't say they do. I said they can.

That any of them do shows that to be the case.

Take your favorite thing – be it reeses pieces, baseball games, whatever.

I think it should be banned. It is a waste of money – money spent on reeses pieces or baseball would be better spent if given to charities. So from now on, anyone who spent money buying reeses pieces or going to a baseball game will be forced to give 10% of their money to charities.

Just like the minimum wage – it is going to be very interesting from an economics point of view if the raise in the minimum wage were to get passed. Though why do things by such small steps… why don’t we just raise it to $100 an hour? We would completely eliminate poverty in one fell swoop.

You're either an idiot, or a big fan of idiocy.

To say that raising the minimum wage to 7.50 or whatever the number being considered is, is the same as raising it to 100 dollars an hour is like saying that if a death penalty doesn't prevent murder, then why bother with a penalty for murder at all.

Or saying that if we're going to have taxes why doesn't the government just take all the money? Or if lowering taxes helps the economy, why don't we just abolish all taxes.

There is a floating optimum point of taxation (for purposes of revenue collection) in which charging more results in decreased revenue because of a shrinking tax base. Charging less results in less taxes because of simply collecting a smaller share of an insufficiently larger pool.

By the same token there is an opptimal earning power (for purposes of economic growth) of the poorest wage-earning population. If they earn more the economy stagnates due to a decreasing demand for consumer goods. If they earn more there is rampant inflation.

Bottom tier wages have never grown fast enough to cause inflation problems in this country except in the imagination of some far-right wing ideologues.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

I've got an idea. Why don't I pretend to work, and you pretend to pay me?

You're either an idiot, or a big fan of idiocy.


I really like this guy.

To say that raising the minimum wage to 7.50 or whatever the number being considered is, is the same as raising it to 100 dollars an hour is like saying that if a death penalty doesn't prevent murder, then why bother with a penalty for murder at all.
If you're aiming for some optimal wage, then yes. If you're just trying to alleviate poverty, his reasoning holds.

And the death penalty thing isn't an unreasonable position. If the goal of punishment is to deter crime, and the most severe possible punishment doesn't do that at all, then either all punishment is pointless or we've misidentified the most severe possible punishment.
You're either an idiot, or a big fan of idiocy
This made me laugh. It reminded me of a line I heard years ago:

"If you sit at the back of an airplane, either you have diarrhea, or you're interested in meeting people who do."

You're either an idiot, or a big fan of idiocy.

To say that raising the minimum wage to 7.50 or whatever the number being considered is, is the same as raising it to 100 dollars an hour is like saying that if a death penalty doesn't prevent murder, then why bother with a penalty for murder at all.

Or saying that if we're going to have taxes why doesn't the government just take all the money? Or if lowering taxes helps the economy, why don't we just abolish all taxes.

There is a floating optimum point of taxation (for purposes of revenue collection) in which charging more results in decreased revenue because of a shrinking tax base. Charging less results in less taxes because of simply collecting a smaller share of an insufficiently larger pool.

By the same token there is an opptimal earning power (for purposes of economic growth) of the poorest wage-earning population. If they earn more the economy stagnates due to a decreasing demand for consumer goods. If they earn more there is rampant inflation.

Bottom tier wages have never grown fast enough to cause inflation problems in this country except in the imagination of some far-right wing ideologues.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hyperbole

Setting an arbitrary minimum wage based upon what some politicians think is a 'reasonable' minimum is fairly ludicrous. People should be free to offer, and take, a job for whatever they want.

If I deem it sufficient, I will do it. If it is not enough, I won’t.

A mandatory minimum wage artificially lowers employment among the most impoverished and imposes an artificial cost on labor for those who want to employ them. Thus, minimum wages are a bad thing for both the economy and those least employable.

The best way to help those truly impoverished is not to keep them from having jobs, but to use something like the earned income tax credit. I would much rather have someone working for a pittance and give them a little bonus to help them make ends meet than to have them unemployed and completely dependent upon government support.

In case you haven’t noticed, having those low paying jobs provides them with the opportunity to get a higher paying job. You are more valuable to an employer with proven work experience and thus more employable for higher wages. If you have been simply sitting on welfare doing nothing, odds are you are less likely to actually get a job.

Improving the employability of those currently unemployable seems to be one of the best things to do to an economy for the long term. Imposing restrictions and artificially raising the cost of labor for the marginal workers seems to be fairly backwards.

Also, minimum wage induces illegal immigration. Since Americans aren't allowed to take those $2/hour jobs with the leafblower, there's an unsatisfied demand for cheap labour that draws in poor aliens.

That corporate greed is the corporation serving the wished of the shareholders (and that's a very large group of people). Furthermore, the CEO's don't just get to take that money; they're awarded it for being exceptionally good at what they do.

They do. It's called taxes. Except, if you base it on wealth rather than income then you're encouraging wasteful spending as people spend money recklessly in order to avoid paying taxes on assets.

What's wrong with gluttony? You need some sort of basis for your condemnation of people's spending habits. What would be an appropriate thing on which to spend money?

So, a CEO's labor is worth as much as he's paid? That's troubling...

So then, it would follow by that logic that a CEO who is paid 30 million dollars is worth 1000 times more than a teacher making 30 thousand dollars a year. It would also follow by the logic that the CEOs of today are somehow worth 50 times more than those twenty years ago. :(

I find that hard to justify.

Also, minimum wage induces illegal immigration. Since Americans aren't allowed to take those $2/hour jobs with the leafblower, there's an unsatisfied demand for cheap labour that draws in poor aliens.

But if you have to pay those illegals the same wages that you pay Americans, then how does it encourage illegal immigration.

The problem with the anti-illegal immigration crowd is that they are motivated by hatred of foreigners instead of a love of law. If they weren't then they would punish those who hire illegals instead of the immigrants.

e.g. Instead of occaisionally sending a paddywagon to the place where day-laborers wait for employment, why don't they take a Hispanic cop and have him wait for someone looking to hire a bunch of illegals then hit him with a big charge?

Once word got out that the day laborer you hire might be a cop waiting to bust you, the market would dry up real quickly.

Want to know why that doesn't happen? Because the people who oppose those laborers are motivated by hatred of foreigners which makes them focus on ways of punishing the immigrants instead of solving the problem that they represent.

That's the problem they REPRESENT. Not the problem that they ARE.

*snip*

Furthermore, Llewdor's right libertarian philosophy would require free movement of labor i.e. no restrictions on immigration.

So, a CEO's labor is worth as much as he's paid? That's troubling...

So then, it would follow by that logic that a CEO who is paid 30 million dollars is worth 1000 times more than a teacher making 30 thousand dollars a year. It would also follow by the logic that the CEOs of today are somehow worth 50 times more than those twenty years ago. :(

I find that hard to justify.

It's also bullshit. There are many examples for those who care to look of CEO's who preside over huge losses for their companies and get paid millions of dollars.

It's because their salaries are decided by the same small group of people whose salaries will one day be decided, in part, by that very CEO.

If you ran a large club whose dues were used to give the president a salary, but the board members all took turns being president and former presidents return to the board to await their next turn. Do you think that they'd want to set a precedent that a president could be punished for doing poorly? Of course not. Because then today's president who gets punished will turn around and punish you when you're in his old shoes.

So, a CEO's labor is worth as much as he's paid? That's troubling...
See, the thing is that "worth" is not an absolute value. It's arbitrary, chosen by the person who pays for the good in question.

You don't have to justify, nor understand how much the CEO's labour is worth, because you're not the one paying for it.

Who said there was nothing wrong with a minimum wage?

See, the thing is that "worth" is not an absolute value. It's arbitrary, chosen by the person who pays for the good in question.

You don't have to justify, nor understand how much the CEO's labour is worth, because you're not the one paying for it.

I think the idea that CEOs could do anything they wanted because they are CEOs is ridiculous. CEOs don't do their job 100% for money... no one does their paricular job 100% for money. People fall into jobs.. people do jobs they are good at.. people do jobs that they like.

Just because he is a good CEO doesn't mean he could run off and be a better Rocket Scientist than someone who is already a Rocket Scientist just because he is paid more than them. In fact I wager that your average CEO would make a lousy toilet cleaner... they would do a fucking awful job. I wouldn't pay a CEO $2 an hour to clean my toilet.

CEOs are CEOs as thats what they are trained to do.. thats their Job.... The idea that all the people who like being CEOs .. all the people who are good at being CEOs would run off and do some other job if you limited their wages to $10 million dollars is crap.

Most CEOs of really big companies have more money than they will ever spend in their whole lives already. When you are doing a job for $10 million you don't not do the job for 9 million because of the 1 million less.. at that point its about prestige.. not about the money itself.

I happen to know quite a number of very wealthy folks.. they are addicted to their job. They tell themselves that they wouldn't do it if it wasn't for the money... the truth is that they would do it for free as long as everyone else thought they were being paid... They wouldn't even know the money wasn't there.

I was reading the thread and I realized; that's the problem with a completly free market; it isn't about how much you work to get your money, it's about the money you have access to. Take the teacher and CEO analogy I saw in the thread. A teacher is fed out of the government, which does not give nearly enough money to education to have a huge teacher salary. However, a CEO can take aobut as much money as he wants from a huge sucessful company. I like this quote in particular

See, the thing is that "worth" is not an absolute value. It's arbitrary, chosen by the person who pays for the good in question.
The CEOs basically choose how much money they are paid, which is why they are so rich; they do benifit society greatly, but not great enough to have all this gluttony. And also, if you think about it, a lot of starting a business comes with luck too. It is truely unfair that people are left homeless and without sufficent food or medicine while these huge company owners decide their own salaries and have huge moneuments erected of themselves. Truely disqusting, and another reason why we cannot trust human nature.

A teacher is fed out of the government, which does not give nearly enough money to education to have a huge teacher salary.
And what does the government not spending enough on education have to do with the free market? Wouldn't that be a problem of the government, which is antithetical to the free market?

Would you not agree that a privately owned school, which is forced to attract the best teachers to be able to provide competitive service to its customers, might actually pay more to good teachers?

The CEOs basically choose how much money they are paid, which is why they are so rich; they do benifit society greatly, but not great enough to have all this gluttony.
What? The CEO doesn't choose, the shareholders choose. The shareholders all want to make money, so they weigh up what the CEO will earn them against what he or she will cost them.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. What benefit they do "society" is of no importance. That was the point.
The only thing that matters is the benefit they provide to the person paying them.

And also, if you think about it, a lot of starting a business comes with luck too.
Unless you believe in fate, I think you would accept it when I say that every person has the same amount of "luck" in life (as in opportunities that come along).

What you see as people being extraordinarily lucky in life (and I'm not talking the races or lottery here) is usually just people who have been able to put themselves in the right place and the right time to take advantage of an opportunity when it came along. And they've done that through hard work, and a bright mind.

Note that I'm not talking about people who made their money not through effort, like someone who wins the lottery or Paris Hilton. But those people are always going to be a minority.

It is truely unfair that people are left homeless and without sufficent food or medicine while these huge company owners decide their own salaries and have huge moneuments erected of themselves.
You do realise that the CEO is an employee of the company, not the owner, right?

Truely disqusting, and another reason why we cannot trust human nature.
And if you don't trust human nature, why do you trust your emotional reaction that makes you condemn inequality?

Absolutely no coincidence at all. It is clearly a result of choices they make to commit crimes, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, live on welfare...any number of things.

OMFG, bigoted ignorance in is purest state, almost cute!:eek:

Just to throw this in here, some recent big news in the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/13/cngold13.xml

If Goldman Sachs considers giving their executives around £25million in bonuses as reward and presumably also to maintain the company's competitive edge in the labour market (big money = best workers want to work for you), then one can only imagine how high the stakes will eventually go :eek:

Oh yeah, and somewhat related: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/5363376.stm
Abramovich, by raising the stakes in the spending game, is seen as 'ruining' football with unfair competition

Here is why Maxium Wage Laws makes no sense. Society as a whole determines how much each one of us is worth. Shareholders pay the CEOs, fans, and people who come to the game, buy stuff, and buy tickets determine how much the team is worth, and people who elect rep. to the office they were running for determine how much government employees are worth. So, really, the Maximum Wage Law will be going against the wishes of society.

OMFG, bigoted ignorance in is purest state, almost cute!:eek:
It was a simplistic way to put it, but there is always a level of choice involved in life.

The vast majority of poor people don't become career criminals, for example. Can you really say that becoming a career criminal is not the result of a set of choices?

Similarly, many people are not poor. Many people who used to be poor are not anymore.

It's not a matter of sitting there and deciding to be poor. It's a matter of making a long string of decisions which together lead to that final result, a result that is not necessarily obvious at the time.

Whether or not you want to hold people responsible for those decisions is a question of your character. I would argue however that even if you don't, and you want to protect them from the effects, it is not right to do so by taking from those who made a better string of decisions.

OMFG, bigoted ignorance in is purest state, almost cute!:eek:

It's true. Those problems are endemic among poor populations in the US and around the world, and have a lot to do with why many poor people remain poor. They have higher dropout rates, poorer quality schools and teachers, higher crime rates, higher unwed pregnancy rates, higher welfare rates, and higher unemployment along with lower participation rates.

These are real problems in poor communities, and play a gigantic role in the continued poverty of poor areas. If you don't admit these problems exist, you are not going to solve them. The poor have huge problems, and many of them are either self-caused or products of a flawed education system...they're not going to go away unless we fix what we can fix and poor people fix what they can fix.

Pa maximum wage cap on workers would really end up stifling investment by private citizens and thereby reduce our economic growth and cause a fall in stock prices. That in turn would weaken pension and employee retirement funds and worsen the situation for all involved; the only people who would benefit would be government tax collectors and other countries.

Also, a wage cap would result in the people that would earn such high salaries either dropping out of the workforce or leaving to work for companies in countries that don't restrict wages; it would drive down the talent pool in the US and cause a massive brain drain of top-level executives leaving our companies' leadership crippled and unable to draw talent that could drive growth and profits. That would further weaken the US investment picture, costing middle class people and companies billions from lost retirement and investment funds.

Lastly, in this day of globalization, many companies would simply relocate, artificially costing the US jobs, investment, and tax dollars as they relocate to where the talent is and where the business climate is welcoming.

It's not a matter of sitting there and deciding to be poor. It's a matter of making a long string of decisions which together lead to that final result, a result that is not necessarily obvious at the time.

Whether or not you want to hold people responsible for those decisions is a question of your character. I would argue however that even if you don't, and you want to protect them from the effects, it is not right to do so by taking from those who made a better string of decisions.


So if you take twins.. split them at birth and put one twin in a poor family and one in a rich family that they will have the same opportunities as each other??

What a crock...

It is easy to be stupid and lazy and rich if your parents were rich

It is easy to be smart and hardworking and poor if your parents were poor

While its true that everybody has an opportunity to be rich in a capitalist society suggesting that they have an equal opportunity to be rich is quite simply a lie.

If you take those twins and they both turn out to be smart and hardworking the rich kid has a 99% chance of staying rich.. the poor kid has maybe a 10% chance at best of becoming rich.

That ain't an equal opportunity in my mind.

Its fine to be asperational.. but it helps to be realistic.

While everyone may have opportunities the fact is that a rich child will have many .. many more opportunities.

Quite apart from the chance of becoming rich, beyond a certain point more money doesn't help proportionaly more. Why should your average Joe care if on the off chance he does get rich whether he gets 10M or 11M type rich.

If you are on 20,000 a year being paid 25,000 a year will change the way you live. If you are on 20,000,000 a year being paid 20,005,000 probably won't change your life at all.

Even if you look at it proportionally. If your income goes from 20K to 25K your lifestyle may change.. you may be able to afford a car rather than public transport.. you may be able to afford rent for a place that has a separate room for the kids to sleep in.
If your income goes from 20M to 25M you might be able to afford a minutely faster car.. or a 9th bedroom for your son to use as a study...

So being asperational is about getting from 10K to 10M not from 10M to 11M...

Unless you believe in fate, I think you would accept it when I say that every person has the same amount of "luck" in life (as in opportunities that come along).

What you see as people being extraordinarily lucky in life (and I'm not talking the races or lottery here) is usually just people who have been able to put themselves in the right place and the right time to take advantage of an opportunity when it came along. And they've done that through hard work, and a bright mind.

Note that I'm not talking about people who made their money not through effort, like someone who wins the lottery or Paris Hilton. But those people are always going to be a minority.


Everyone has the same opportunites in life? Think about that for a moment: everyone benefits from the same education, the same parenting and the same cultural capital? Of course they don't.

Hard work and money only loosely correlate: people who are born into wealthy families stay wealthy as a rule. And that is not just true of people like Paris Hilton, she's the extreme example of what goes on to differing extents through all layers of society - the wealth you are born into breeds wealth. When people talk about luck they don't just mean lottery winners or even old boys networks or daddy getting you into a company they mean people are lucky in recieving a better place in society than others.

In a thread similar to this someone responded to the statement "the rich got rich through luck" by citing the case of Bill Gates as a self-made man. Bill Gates, however, was definitely not a kid out of the ghetto - I quote from wikipedia: "William Henry Gates III was born in Seattle, Washington to William H. Gates, Jr. (now Sr.) and Mary Maxwell Gates. His family was wealthy; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate Bank and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president. "

Now, okay Bill Gates has made himself even richer but he was afforded opportunities that other people wouldn't have.

Let's say you really push this and mantain that it's your right to enjoy the good decisions of your forefathers - what if your family is wealthy off the back of slavery?

I'm rambling now, so in conclusion: The assertation "Unless you believe in fate, I think you would accept it when I say that every person has the same amount of "luck" in life (as in opportunities that come along)." is completely and demonstratably wrong.

So, a CEO's labor is worth as much as he's paid? That's troubling...

So then, it would follow by that logic that a CEO who is paid 30 million dollars is worth 1000 times more than a teacher making 30 thousand dollars a year. It would also follow by the logic that the CEOs of today are somehow worth 50 times more than those twenty years ago. :(

I find that hard to justify.

No, you get paid for doing your job, and doing it well. If your job is to do manual labor, well, there's only so much you can do, and there are plenty of other people willing to take your place (it's called competition, my friend).

You can thank the Teacher's Union. Good teachers aren't allowed to be paid more than an average teacher, and bad teachers can't be paid less than an average teacher (tell me how this makes sense).

And of course they make more than they did 20 years ago. It's called inflation, young grasshopper. It tends to drive up wages.

Pa maximum wage cap on workers would really end up stifling investment by private citizens and thereby reduce our economic growth and cause a fall in stock prices. That in turn would weaken pension and employee retirement funds and worsen the situation for all involved; the only people who would benefit would be government tax collectors and other countries.

Also, a wage cap would result in the people that would earn such high salaries either dropping out of the workforce or leaving to work for companies in countries that don't restrict wages; it would drive down the talent pool in the US and cause a massive brain drain of top-level executives leaving our companies' leadership crippled and unable to draw talent that could drive growth and profits. That would further weaken the US investment picture, costing middle class people and companies billions from lost retirement and investment funds.

Lastly, in this day of globalization, many companies would simply relocate, artificially costing the US jobs, investment, and tax dollars as they relocate to where the talent is and where the business climate is welcoming.

I just don't see this. A min wage would effect large numbers of people.. a max wage would effect a very select few.

Contrary to popular belief the already rich are not necessarily best at managing big companies. I think you would find that it would have very little effect on the economy at all.. at least not a very great negative one.

Remember what made all these people rich... paying poor people more money.. not paying rich people more money.

That was the beauty of Fords system. He paid his workers enough to be able to buy his product. If the poor get richer then you have a bigger market for products and hence companies make more money.. paying rich people more money hardly does anything for the economy....

Generally poor people spend a larger proportion of their money than rich people.

Therefore the more money in the hands of poor people than rich people the more money is put back into the system.

Paying rich people all the money is bad for the economy...

Considering the way the American superpower was built I find it hard to understand why Americans tend to find this concept difficult to grasp.

Minimum wage, and welfare, are all pure evil, as are their proponents.


Welfare and minimum wage are in no way evil.
Sometimes people are the victims of circumstances beyond their control.
You may ask why I have this opinion.

I was on welfare myself and homeless for the better part of a year.
I suffer from depression and I fell in love with a woman who later became addicted to drugs.
I got laid off from a decent job just before my son was born and he, and his brother, were taken away from me because my wife was doing drugs when she was pregnant behind my back.
I slipped into a major depression but I got my kids back and worked hard to find a good job while caring for them alone.

I went from being on welfare and living in a shelter to having a good job and having a nice apartment of my own to raise my children in.

As for minimum wage if you do any research on the subject you will find that when minimum wage is increased it actually increases jobs as the people that are being paid a higher wage put that money back into the economy buying things like food and clothes, and if they have enough money, a night out on the town or tickets to a ball game.

A subsistence wage only allows people to survive and leaves very little behind to spend on luxuries.

Now I do not agree on a maximum wage because it would limit creativity and competitiveness.
A far better wage to "level the playing field" would be to actually enforce the tax code and to have politicians stop writing loop-holes into the code to benefit the corporate donors that put them in office.

No more off shore tax shelters no more loop-holes written for specific individuals and corporations.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

i'm not sure about the forced charity thing, but a maximum wage i do support as a factor of the minimum wage.

and capitalists who may argue with the idea, remember that the motive behind this (for me at least) is to facilitate a more equal society and hence most arguements i've read against the idea in this thread aren't really an issue compared to this overarching goal.

As for minimum wage if you do any research on the subject you will find that when minimum wage is increased it actually increases jobs as the people that are being paid a higher wage put that money back into the economy buying things like food and clothes, and if they have enough money, a night out on the town or tickets to a ball game.


yes. research also shows that one of the key causes for economic instability, particularly in the financial sector (in the UK at least), is the huge and often unpredictable million-pound bonuses that are paid to fatcats in the City each year, contributing far more to the fluctuation of GDP in percentage terms than rises in the minimum wage by a few pence.

I just don't see this. A min wage would effect large numbers of people.. a max wage would effect a very select few.

Yes, but those select few have a lot of money. The richest 10% of the US population control 30.5% of its wealth; drive them out, and you could see an economic contraction of up to that amount.

Contrary to popular belief the already rich are not necessarily best at managing big companies. I think you would find that it would have very little effect on the economy at all.. at least not a very great negative one.

The rich CEOs get rich because they are good at their jobs; very few companies have families that run the company, and many CEOs that are highly successful didn't come from rich families. They mostly came from middle-class or upper-middle class households and worked their way up to those positions.

In fact, the companies that do have those kinds of dynastic management systems are doing very poorly; Ford in particular comes to mind.

Remember what made all these people rich... paying poor people more money.. not paying rich people more money.

The market determines what CEOs get. If the shareholders feel that a CEO deserves a certain salary, they pay him that amount; his income is almost entirely tied to his performance because most executive pay is given out in stock options rather than cash. If the company does poorly and the stock tanks, so does the income of the CEO.

That was the beauty of Fords system. He paid his workers enough to be able to buy his product. If the poor get richer then you have a bigger market for products and hence companies make more money.. paying rich people more money hardly does anything for the economy....

Oh, I support that idea. It makes sense to increase wages, as long as it leads to increased consumption and productivity; in that case, inflation is contained because workers produce more for the same amount of money.

Generally poor people spend a larger proportion of their money than rich people.

But saving and investment also generate wealth; as long as people are investing or saving their money in banks, the economy benefits.

Therefore the more money in the hands of poor people than rich people the more money is put back into the system.

Not necessarily. When the US Congress enacted a tax on high-end goods in the early 90's, there was an immediate spike in unemployment. That $50,000 boat or $1,000,000 house employ a lot more people to build, maintain, sell, and process that money than a $1 bag of chips or a $300/month apartment.

Paying rich people all the money is bad for the economy...

Considering the way the American superpower was built I find it hard to understand why Americans tend to find this concept difficult to grasp.

How? It's only bad if the rich people are getting their money illegally or if they are getting it at the expense of the economy; seeing as how neither are the case, I'd say that it's not true.

Well, that sounds like a good idea, but the way I see it, there's a more effective and efficient way of doing it.
I read that the gap between what the average CEO and the average employee earns in Japan is 10 times, 11 in Germany, 16 in France, 22 in Australia, and 25 in Britain, but a ridiculous 531 times in the United States. Germany and Japan have some of the world's best car companies (Honda, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota) and especially compared to North American cars. You're telling me that quality comes from huge income gaps?
It's all so a few self-indulgent and greedy CEOs can continue to live the most luxurious yet hollow lifestyle possible. This at the expense of the workers who but thirty years ago made enough to get by but now are working harder for less.
My suggestion would be a dividend system: what the CEO earns can be no more than, say, 25 times what the average employee earns. Take the total money on the payroll, and divide it by the amount of workers receiving money from it, and it can be no more than the set amount. That way, the employees are encouraged to work harder and harder so that they prosper, and the CEOs still get to earn more money than the workers as a reward for climbing the ladder. Furthermore, more people have money to spend versus a minority, which would mean that inflation is less likely because money is more likely to continue in circulation. When people don't have money, they're not spending any, and the economy goes into stagnation.
As a final note, I should add that anybody who thinks that minimum wage is a violation of freedom or anything of the sort either has never worked, is an executive hotshot themselves, or is so utterly brainwashed by corporatist propaganda (who do you think owns all the newspapers, cable news stations and radio stations?). Nothing against business: just against greed.

I'm taking it as a compliment my post is being ignored. Watertight :cool:

I read that the gap between what the average CEO and the average employee earns in Japan is 10 times, 11 in Germany, 16 in France, 22 in Australia, and 25 in Britain, but a ridiculous 531 times in the United States.

in a similar thread the other day, using figures posted there, i calculated that the average CEO in the US was being paid 100,000% of that of their average worker.

i fail to see how any one person is worth one-hundered thousand times the amount any other is, no matter how "hard" they supposedly work or how difficult their jobs are (some of the hardest working people around are the very poorest...)

I just don't see this. A min wage would effect large numbers of people.. a max wage would effect a very select few.


Actually only three percent of workers in America make minimum wage.

in a similar thread the other day, using figures posted there, i calculated that the average CEO in the US was being paid 100,000% of that of their average worker.

I actually think it's around 431 times the salary of an average worker these days. That income multiple would mean the average US worker's salary is only $12,510 dollars per year which is not even enough to keep more than one person above the poverty line.

How about instead of a maximum salary, it's based on a multiple of the average wage of the workers in that company (minus the CEO of course).
Say the CEO gets 10x what the average drone in the company gets.

Actually only three percent of workers in America make minimum wage.

What percentage of Americans would earn over 10 Million a year? A lot less than 3% I would be guessing...

How about instead of a maximum salary, it's based on a multiple of the average wage of the workers in that company (minus the CEO of course).

Say the CEO gets 10x what the average drone in the company gets.

Well, here's the thing: Most CEOs do actually make around that amount in a year.

Almost all of their income is either in the form of restricted stock options or long term incentives; the only time they get that money is when they are allowed to exercise their options or if the company hits certain targets within the timeframe for the long-term incentives.

What percentage of Americans would earn over 10 Million a year? A lot less than 3% I would be guessing...

I never said that the maximum wage would effect a great deal, but the effects of a minimum wage are quite small as well.

Oh, please. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find something more anti-corporation than the American big media.

And besides, you all are missing the point: in America, it is very easy to move up the socio-economic ladder (Bill Gates was a college drop-out). Wanna see a good example? Watch the new movie out, called "The Pursuit of Happyness," which is a very inspiring story of a man, in the deepest pits of poverty, moves up the ladder and becomes a very wealthy man. And guess what? The only thing that put him there was... *gasp*... HIS OWN AMBITION! HIS OWN DESIRE TO SUCCEED! Nothing more, nothing less.

The gap in American wage levels is unimportant, because, as I just said, everybody has the chance to move up the ladder, regardless of your background. Nothing's stopping you...

I actually think it's around 431 times the salary of an average worker these days. That income multiple would mean the average US worker's salary is only $12,510 dollars per year which is not even enough to keep more than one person above the poverty line.

iirc the figure given was approximately $13,000

Oh, please. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find something more anti-corporation than the American big media.

And besides, you all are missing the point: in America, it is very easy to move up the socio-economic ladder (Bill Gates was a college drop-out). Wanna see a good example? Watch the new movie out, called "The Pursuit of Happyness," which is a very inspiring story of a man, in the deepest pits of poverty, moves up the ladder and becomes a very wealthy man. And guess what? The only thing that put him there was... *gasp*... HIS OWN AMBITION! HIS OWN DESIRE TO SUCCEED! Nothing more, nothing less.

The gap in American wage levels is unimportant, because, as I just said, everybody has the chance to move up the ladder, regardless of your background. Nothing's stopping you...

Yes everyone has a chance... but for some no matter how hard they work or how smart they are that chance is still close to zero. Sure its not actually zero.. but it may as well be.

In a population of 300 million there will be a few lucky ones.. who do make it through even against the odds... these guys (and very occassionaly gals) get paraded around as if its the norm..

Oh, please. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find something more anti-corporation than the American big media.

And besides, you all are missing the point: in America, it is very easy to move up the socio-economic ladder (Bill Gates was a college drop-out). Wanna see a good example? Watch the new movie out, called "The Pursuit of Happyness," which is a very inspiring story of a man, in the deepest pits of poverty, moves up the ladder and becomes a very wealthy man. And guess what? The only thing that put him there was... *gasp*... HIS OWN AMBITION! HIS OWN DESIRE TO SUCCEED! Nothing more, nothing less.

The gap in American wage levels is unimportant, because, as I just said, everybody has the chance to move up the ladder, regardless of your background. Nothing's stopping you...

Okay, now I'm not sure if my post is being ignored or just not read.

Bill Gates was a card carrying member of the freakin' upper class. He went from the impossible lows of massive wealth to the high of insane wealth.
Bill Gates is simply a cringe-inducingly bad example to cite when trying to argue that America is a meritocracy.

Aside from the obvious weakness of describing big corporations as anti-corporations you are going to have to mantain that everyone benefits from the same education, the same parenting and the same cultural capital if you want to argue the gap in wages is unimportant.

You're also going to have to explain why - usually - the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor unless there's some sort of motivation gene scientests haven't discovered yet.

I never said that the maximum wage would effect a great deal, but the effects of a minimum wage are quite small as well.

3% of the workforce is actually a huge number to have at the very bottom of the scale.Thats the very very bottom ( of those who are gainfully employed)

I think people have the idea that wages are somehow in a kind of bell curve.

but its way more like a pear... fat at the bottom and thin at the top....

iirc the figure given was approximately $13,000

That's way too low; hell, you couldn't even afford a mortgage on an average house with a salary like that and a family of four would be at starvation level. Now, if you use the 451 figure you get $27,738, which is about right for individual cash income in the US (personal income is higher, about $46,000).

The point is clear either way: there's a huge gap between the two.

Oh, please. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find something more anti-corporation than the American big media.

And besides, you all are missing the point: in America, it is very easy to move up the socio-economic ladder (Bill Gates was a college drop-out). Wanna see a good example? Watch the new movie out, called "The Pursuit of Happyness," which is a very inspiring story of a man, in the deepest pits of poverty, moves up the ladder and becomes a very wealthy man. And guess what? The only thing that put him there was... *gasp*... HIS OWN AMBITION! HIS OWN DESIRE TO SUCCEED! Nothing more, nothing less.

The gap in American wage levels is unimportant, because, as I just said, everybody has the chance to move up the ladder, regardless of your background. Nothing's stopping you...

When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose. And if you think that this one guy's story will be in any way approaching the situation of the majority, you're sorely mistaken. That would just prove how the media in the United States is so obsessively pre-occupied with corporatism and wealth that they convince every ignoramus (not naming names...) that they can make it just as big.
The fact is that this guy did a good thing, he pulled himself out of poverty. But don't dilute yourself: there are thousands who are just as strong that, for whatever reason, can't do it. This guy probably was able to kiss a lot of rump and got lucky.
Don't kid yourself into believing that this guy's OWN AMBITION is what got him through: that's not the reality of it. And yes, the wage gap is immensely important, and if you don't think so, I can't believe you've ever worked for minimum wage. Everything in the world is stopping the poor from climbing the ladder. Just because one lucky guy can do it doesn't mean that anybody can, sorry to burst your bubble. Snap back to reality, my friend.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

Because a lot of us on the "Left" (well at least those of us that get classified as such) are for as much freedom as possible with making sure that people at least can live ...

Oh, please. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find something more anti-corporation than the American big media.

The ones owned by huge corporations?
Yeah I see their anti-corporate bias every day on Faux "News" :p


And besides, you all are missing the point: in America, it is very easy to move up the socio-economic ladder (Bill Gates was a college drop-out). Wanna see a good example? Watch the new movie out, called "The Pursuit of Happyness," which is a very inspiring story of a man, in the deepest pits of poverty, moves up the ladder and becomes a very wealthy man. And guess what? The only thing that put him there was... *gasp*... HIS OWN AMBITION! HIS OWN DESIRE TO SUCCEED! Nothing more, nothing less.

The gap in American wage levels is unimportant, because, as I just said, everybody has the chance to move up the ladder, regardless of your background. Nothing's stopping you...


Ah yes Hollywood is full of 100% true rags to riches stories.
If we could all just become Will Smith we would be set for life.
And no one would ever get old or fat and the good guys would always win in the end!

That crushing poverty you live in?
Shake it off it is not stopping you!
The fact that you have to work 60 hours a week at minimum wage to pay for food and clothes for you kids?
That is just making you stronger for your eventual rise to multi-millionaire status!
No health insurance?
Well that just means you will never get hurt or sick!

I'm against a Maximum Wage Cap because I want to be able to make the most money I can in my field, and if there's a cap, and I can't make anymore pass that point, then it's just going to suck.

Because a lot of us on the "Left" (well at least those of us that get classified as such) are for as much freedom as possible with making sure that people at least can live ...

So surely that priority should point you towards providing some freedom for the most number of people possible rather than providing the most freedom possible to some of the people.

If you aren't free to educate your children and provide adequete health care what kind of freedom do you really have?

How much more free are you if you earn 10M dollars or 11M?

How much more free are you if you earn 10K dollars or 1M and 10K dollars?


What kind of value for money are you getting in the freedom stakes if the money is in the hands of those who are already free??

THats why this owuld be a global policy.

Uhhh...BULLSHIT! If you want to do that for yourself, go right ahead. But I'd have to drop where you stand before I let you do it to me.

And, as for the comment about making sure people have what they need...who, exactly, in doing this "ensuring"? Isn't it the responsibility of each person to ensure they have what they need?

Oh, damn....I used the "R" word.:mad:

So surely that priority should point you towards providing some freedom for the most number of people possible rather than providing the most freedom possible to some of the people.

If you aren't free to educate your children and provide adequete health care what kind of freedom do you really have?

How much more free are you if you earn 10M dollars or 11M?

How much more free are you if you earn 10K dollars or 1M and 10K dollars?


What kind of value for money are you getting in the freedom stakes if the money is in the hands of those who are already free??

QFT.

Uhhh...BULLSHIT! If you want to do that for yourself, go right ahead. But I'd have to drop where you stand before I let you do it to me.

And, as for the comment about making sure people have what they need...who, exactly, in doing this "ensuring"? Isn't it the responsibility of each person to ensure they have what they need?

Oh, damn....I used the "R" word.:mad:

For shame, FOR SHAME! Responsibility has no place in today's society!

For shame, FOR SHAME! Responsibility has no place in today's society!

Yeah, I knew you were good people. ;)

I'm against a Maximum Wage Cap because I want to be able to make the most money I can in my field, and if there's a cap, and I can't make anymore pass that point, then it's just going to suck.

What if like the 99% of people in your chosen field you never make that maximum amount..

Wouldn't you rather make more money earlier in your career

What if instead of starting at $10 an hour and working up to $1000 an hour your field offered a starting wage of $20 an hour working up to $200 an hour?

Sure you are never gonna earn $1000 an hour when you are 65 but you are gonna earn $100 an hour when you are 30 instead of 50......

Doesn't that sound appealing?

So surely that priority should point you towards providing some freedom for the most number of people possible rather than providing the most freedom possible to some of the people.

If you aren't free to educate your children and provide adequete health care what kind of freedom do you really have?

How much more free are you if you earn 10M dollars or 11M?

How much more free are you if you earn 10K dollars or 1M and 10K dollars?


What kind of value for money are you getting in the freedom stakes if the money is in the hands of those who are already free??

I agree which is why I support a minimum wage but not a maximum ... this allows people to earn what they can while making sure at least those at the 10 can earn enough to achieve some freedom

What if like the 99% of people in your chosen field you never make that maximum amount..

Wouldn't you rather make more money earlier in your career

What if instead of starting at $10 an hour and working up to $1000 an hour your field offered a starting wage of $20 an hour working up to $200 an hour?

Sure you are never gonna earn $1000 an hour when you are 65 but you are gonna earn $100 an hour when you are 30 instead of 50......

Doesn't that sound appealing?

I would rather start out making $10 and work up to $1,000 than start out at $20 and only make up to $200. Hell if I can make up to $1,000 then I'm going to try to make up to $1,000. Sure it'll take a long time, but at least as long as I work hard, make the right moves, and do things I have to do to advance, I should be good.

Yeah, I knew you were good people. ;)

What can I say, my parents raised me the old fashion way. They raised me to be a responsible, smart, hard working person.

What can I say, my parents raised me the old fashion way. They raised me to be a responsible, smart, hard working person.

Cheers to that!:)

Well, here's how you implement a maximum wage cap...

... and I'm going to go right ahead and say there's little wrong with it, the behavior of extreme wealth is mainly dictated by tax codes in any case...

... you set up your tax curve so that gross income - taxed income is a curve with a horizontal asymptote. It's that simple; you just have to make sure you count all forms of income, and you're set.

And who is oppressed by a maximum income cap? Who, exactly? Nobody. If you net $10+ mill per year, you're making quite enough, and that money is going to have to go somewhere else. Small investors making a greater return, the government becoming solvent, fast-food employees getting paid more - whatever it is.

Money has to come from somewhere, and society has finite production - and if you're going to set a high minimum standard of living, you're going to need something of a maximum.

I would rather start out making $10 and work up to $1,000 than start out at $20 and only make up to $200. Hell if I can make up to $1,000 then I'm going to try to make up to $1,000. Sure it'll take a long time, but at least as long as I work hard, make the right moves, and do things I have to do to advance, I should be good.


See thats the reasoning I just don't understand...

Why would people want to have a 1% chance of earning more money than they could ever need rather than a 50% chance of earning as much as they will ever need??

And then those same people deride others for participating in the lottery because the odds aren't that good.

If someone said to you that you can have a 50% chance of winning a car or a 1% chance of winning 3 cars why would you chose the 1% crap shoot at winning more cars than you need..

And if you really are that hard working that you can somehow magically guarantee that you are going to get that top position ... then guess what you are working too hard to enjoy it.......

See thats the reasoning I just don't understand...

Why would people want to have a 1% chance of earning more money than they could ever need rather than a 50% chance of earning as much as they will ever need??

And then those same people deride others for participating in the lottery because the odds aren't that good.

If someone said to you that you can have a 50% chance of winning a car or a 1% chance of winning 3 cars why would you chose the 1% crap shoot at winning more cars than you need..

And if you really are that hard working that you can somehow magically guarantee that you are going to get that top position ... then guess what you are working too hard to enjoy it.......

I may not get $1,000, but at least I'd get a hell lot higher than $200.

I may not get $1,000, but at least I'd get a hell lot higher than $200.

Maybe ...

There is no garontee on that

Hell I have worked my entire life to get where I am at ... I paid for every cent of my education and housing and worked my ass off to get where I did

And I still realized while drive can help a lot some times things are out of your hands ... Accidents , medical issues, bad timing, market forces

They can all sucker punch you when you are down and to some extent you cant control them.

Going for the all is not ALWAYS the smartest choice

more money than they could ever need

No offense, but where do you get off telling me, or anyone else for that matter, how much money they need? Seems to me, if you don't want to make that much money, then don't. If anyone wants to make more than $10 million annually, more power to them.

Maybe ...

There is no garontee on that

Hell I have worked my entire life to get where I am at ... I paid for every cent of my education and housing and worked my ass off to get where I did

And I still realized while drive can help a lot some times things are out of your hands ... Accidents , medical issues, bad timing, market forces

They can all sucker punch you when you are down and to some extent you cant control them.

Going for the all is not ALWAYS the smartest choice

Yea, but here's the thing. If there's a cap, and if I reach that cap, then I'm just going to completely shut down. I mean I've reached the top, so why even bother anymore. However if there is no cap there, and there's a chance for me to go higher then Hell I'm going higher.

No offense, but where do you get off telling me, or anyone else for that matter, how much money they need? Seems to me, if you don't want to make that much money, then don't. If anyone wants to make more than $10 million annually, more power to them.

I agree with Taki. Government should have no business in telling us how we should spend our money, or how much our labor is worth. That should be left up in a contract between the employer and the employee.

I may not get $1,000, but at least I'd get a hell lot higher than $200.
Actually, in most markets that could be adjusted to pay from $10 to $1000 to $20 to $200, you'd probably not make it to $200 in the original market. Anything over $100, in fact, would be very unusual and probably only paid to a few workers who not only had the right skills, but the right connections to land the high-end high-pay edition of the job.

It's the whole gambling thing all over again.

I agree with Taki. Government should have no business in telling us how we should spend our money, or how much our labor is worth. That should be left up in a contract between the employer and the employee.

I'm gonna go one more than that: if anyone is worried/concerned/fretful about another person's lack...then go take care of it yourself! This idea that others HAVE to give up what they've earned just because someone else doesn't like it, or thinks they could spend it better, is stupid and insulting. And wrong! Instead of worrying about someone who's not even a part of the equation, go deal with the problems yourself.

Actually, in most markets that could be adjusted to pay from $10 to $1000 to $20 to $200, you'd probably not make it to $200 in the original market. Anything over $100, in fact, would be very unusual and probably only paid to a few workers who not only had the right skills, but the right connections to land the high-end high-pay edition of the job.

It's the whole gambling thing all over again.

Eh at least the freedom is there.

Well, here's how you implement a maximum wage cap...

... and I'm going to go right ahead and say there's little wrong with it, the behavior of extreme wealth is mainly dictated by tax codes in any case...

... you set up your tax curve so that gross income - taxed income is a curve with a horizontal asymptote. It's that simple; you just have to make sure you count all forms of income, and you're set.

And who is oppressed by a maximum income cap? Who, exactly? Nobody. If you net $10+ mill per year, you're making quite enough, and that money is going to have to go somewhere else. Small investors making a greater return, the government becoming solvent, fast-food employees getting paid more - whatever it is.

Money has to come from somewhere, and society has finite production - and if you're going to set a high minimum standard of living, you're going to need something of a maximum.

QFT

100 people in a company

1 CEO earning 20 million
5 High up employees earning 1 million
20 Medium Employees earning 100 thousand
74 Low end employees earning 25 thousand

Or
1 CEO earning 10 million
5 High up employees earning 1.2 million
20 Medium Employees earning 200 thousand
74 low end employees earning 120 thousand

Same bottom line as far as wages....

Everyone wins.... except the 1 guy at the top who is already a winner!!

74 peoples lives are Dramatically!! improved (25K to 100K) you would have the happiest and best work force around!!

20 more peoples lives majorly improved 100K to 200K is middle class to upper middle class bam .. just like that

and another 5 who are slightly improved

I just don't understand how that would not be a more successful model...

EDIT Of course a real world example may be more like 1000 workers in a company with 974 low end workers going from 25,000 to 32,000.. still a big deal though obviously not as full on as 25000 to 120000

Yea, but here's the thing. If there's a cap, and if I reach that cap, then I'm just going to completely shut down. I mean I've reached the top, so why even bother anymore. However if there is no cap there, and there's a chance for me to go higher then Hell I'm going higher.
Wilgrove, if you're earning $10 mill a year or something silly like that that would hit an income cap, you don't just "shut down" when you find you can't get a raise.

Now, if you find it's easy to earn $10 mill in less than a year... well, congratulations, now you've got extra time. Go volunteer. Take a vacation. Enjoy life. Find a trophy wife. It's not a hardship, and it's not anything resembling a serious drain on society.

I'm gonna go one more than that: if anyone is worried/concerned/fretful about another person's lack...then go take care of it yourself! This idea that others HAVE to give up what they've earned just because someone else doesn't like it, or thinks they could spend it better, is stupid and insulting. And wrong! Instead of worrying about someone who's not even a part of the equation, go deal with the problems yourself.

My dad has always taught me to worry about yourself first, then others. Once your ducks are all lined up in a row, then you can worry about others.

Yea, but here's the thing. If there's a cap, and if I reach that cap, then I'm just going to completely shut down. I mean I've reached the top, so why even bother anymore. However if there is no cap there, and there's a chance for me to go higher then Hell I'm going higher.

you assume it's easy to reach that cap. Your argument is a little preposterous "gee, I'm already making 10 million a year, but I can't make 11, so I'm just not going to try, never mind the fact that if I keep working hard I can continue to make 10 million a year".

My dad has always taught me to worry about yourself first, then others. Once your ducks are all lined up in a row, then you can worry about others.

Dear IRS,

I can't pay my taxes this year since my ducks are crooked. I'm sure you'll understand.

-A

My dad has always taught me to worry about yourself first, then others. Once your ducks are all lined up in a row, then you can worry about others.
And if you're doing well enough to hit an income cap, your ducks are all in a row. Congratz, it's time to worry about others. The oh-so-burdensome responsibility of the elite, you understand.

Dear IRS,

I can't pay my taxes this year since my ducks are crooked. I'm sure you'll understand.

-A

Seems to me that paying MY taxes is part of taking care of MYSELF....where is there any contradiction?

Wilgrove, if you're earning $10 mill a year or something silly like that that would hit an income cap, you don't just "shut down" when you find you can't get a raise.

Now, if you find it's easy to earn $10 mill in less than a year... well, congratulations, now you've got extra time. Go volunteer. Take a vacation. Enjoy life. Find a trophy wife. It's not a hardship, and it's not anything resembling a serious drain on society.

I'm just telling you what will happen with a salary cap. Once people hit that cap, then there's no reason, no need to expand, or put out better product. Hell there's not any reason to make new product if the current one is doing good enough. Part of the reason why people keep on putting our newer and better product all the time is because they believe it can earn them even more money. Put a cap on how much they earn, and well, you've just taken away the reason to put out newer and better product.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

*gags on the utter foolishness*

*gags on the utter foolishness*



Best Post Of The Night....well, for me, it is.

you assume it's easy to reach that cap. Your argument is a little preposterous "gee, I'm already making 10 million a year, but I can't make 11, so I'm just not going to try, never mind the fact that if I keep working hard I can continue to make 10 million a year".

Actually before I reach that cap, I would've been working harder than my competition, but once at the top, why bother.

Yea, but here's the thing. If there's a cap, and if I reach that cap, then I'm just going to completely shut down. I mean I've reached the top, so why even bother anymore. However if there is no cap there, and there's a chance for me to go higher then Hell I'm going higher.

If you are earning 10 million dollars a year (the proposed cap) and dont see a reason to continue to strive for that maybe it is time they passed the torch onto someone more worthy

Note I am not advocating a cap for pure freedom reasons but saying there would be no motivation ...

The motivation is to keep making 10 mil a year!

And if you're doing well enough to hit an income cap, your ducks are all in a row. Congratz, it's time to worry about others. The oh-so-burdensome responsibility of the elite, you understand.

FYI: Not all rich people are selfish assholes. Maybe you should look at some of the foundations that Bill Gates has started, or other "elites" has started.

Dear IRS,

I can't pay my taxes this year since my ducks are crooked. I'm sure you'll understand.

-A

Actually your taxes are your responsibility, thus you are looking out for yourself, and would be in your own best interest to pay them.

I've got a major problem with the government saying "Yeah, you're not worth x , whether anyone else thinks so or no.t"

*gags on the utter foolishness*

*gags harder on the corresponding arrogance, opulence, wastefulness and greed, but cleans it up and apologizes because, after all, I live in the USA, and greed is the name of the game here*

I'm just telling you what will happen with a salary cap. Once people hit that cap, then there's no reason, no need to expand, or put out better product. Hell there's not any reason to make new product if the current one is doing good enough. Part of the reason why people keep on putting our newer and better product all the time is because they believe it can earn them even more money. Put a cap on how much they earn, and well, you've just taken away the reason to put out newer and better product.

two questions.

1) how many people, exactly, do you think are hitting this 10 million a year or so cap?

2) of those, how many continue to go to work and working because they really want 11 million a year?

Lemme explain something. You think "if I can't make more money I have no obligation to work", that's bullshit. Those people who are pulling those kind of salaries, by and large, are not private individuals with private jobs. They're officers and executives of major corporations.

And major corporations have obligations to stockholders. Stockholders who ALSO want to make money. Stockholders who will FIRE THEIR ASSES if those obligations are not met.

People who go "well, I can't make any more money so I'm just going to stop trying" get fired by their stockholders. And while 10 mil is less than 11 mil, it's certainly more than 0.

If you are earning 10 million dollars a year (the proposed cap) and dont see a reason to continue to strive for that maybe it is time they passed the torch onto someone more worthy

Note I am not advocating a cap for pure freedom reasons but saying there would be no motivation ...

The motivation is to keep making 10 mil a year!

Yea, but usually people who make such a high amount has tenure, or golden parachutes. Sure I'll be making $10 mil a year, but if I could make more than $10 mil, then I would be working hard to make more than $10 mil, but since I can't eh, why bother.

Actually before I reach that cap, I would've been working harder than my competition, but once at the top, why bother.

because if you don't you get fired, duh?

You think bill gates can't be kicked out? You think Steve Jobs can't be fired?

Stockholders tend not to like it when their executive officers stop trying. And if there are five words that any executive officer dreads it's "stockholder vote of no confidence".

*gags harder on the corresponding arrogance, opulence, wastefulness and greed, but cleans it up and apologizes because, after all, I live in the USA, and greed is the name of the game here*

And I'm supposed to give a damn about how other people live their lives?

There's a damn good reason I voted against the gay marriage ban in my state. Live and let live, and not whine and moan because you don't like it.

If you are earning 10 million dollars a year (the proposed cap) and dont see a reason to continue to strive for that maybe it is time they passed the torch onto someone more worthy

Note I am not advocating a cap for pure freedom reasons but saying there would be no motivation ...

The motivation is to keep making 10 mil a year!

Wait a minute....this isn't about not doing the work it takes to earn the $10 mil...it's "why go any further than that?". It's the idea that the maximum work, or innovation, or craftsmanship, or what have you, is worth (at a max) $10 mil. That there's no room for improvement...we can't go any further. We can't do any better. Why find out if you're not going to be rewarded appropriately?

The argument that "Well, you came up with some things that blow your old work away, but since you're already at the cap, it's not worth any more than what you're already earning." is "utter foolishness".

two questions.

1) how many people, exactly, do you think are hitting this 10 million a year or so cap?

2) of those, how many continue to go to work and working because they really want 11 million a year?

Lemme explain something. You think "if I can't make more money I have no obligation to work", that's bullshit. Those people who are pulling those kind of salaries, by and large, are not private individuals with private jobs. They're officers and executives of major corporations.

And major corporations have obligations to stockholders. Stockholders who ALSO want to make money. Stockholders who will FIRE THEIR ASSES if those obligations are not met.

People who go "well, I can't make any more money so I'm just going to stop trying" get fired by their stockholders. And while 10 mil is less than 11 mil, it's certainly more than 0.

Ah, but in most cases, getting fired is the golden egg. Severence packages are often as insanely inflated as pro sports salaries. At least the athletes accept physical infirmity and the wear and tear on their bodies as payment for their largesse. Those who own the teams? Not so much.

two questions.

1) how many people, exactly, do you think are hitting this 10 million a year or so cap?

2) of those, how many continue to go to work and working because they really want 11 million a year?

Lemme explain something. You think "if I can't make more money I have no obligation to work", that's bullshit. Those people who are pulling those kind of salaries, by and large, are not private individuals with private jobs. They're officers and executives of major corporations.

And major corporations have obligations to stockholders. Stockholders who ALSO want to make money. Stockholders who will FIRE THEIR ASSES if those obligations are not met.

People who go "well, I can't make any more money so I'm just going to stop trying" get fired by their stockholders. And while 10 mil is less than 11 mil, it's certainly more than 0.

People, in general are motivated by greed. They are motivated by the fact that if they do this, this and this, then they'll get more money. If they keep working hard to make other choices, and if they work out, then they'll make more money. In a capitalistic society, people will always strive to make more money. Now if you take away their ability, their reason to keep on doing better, to keep on improving, to keep on doing their duties to the shareholders, then what will happen?

Yea, but usually people who make such a high amount has tenure, or golden parachutes. Sure I'll be making $10 mil a year, but if I could make more than $10 mil, then I would be working hard to make more than $10 mil, but since I can't eh, why bother.

because you'll get fired, and replaced with someone else? 10 mil a year is quite a lot of motivation for people to want your job

And I'm supposed to give a damn about how other people live their lives?

There's a damn good reason I voted against the gay marriage ban in my state. Live and let live, and not whine and moan because you don't like it.

Who's whining? I cleaned up MY vomit....

I'm just telling you what will happen with a salary cap. Once people hit that cap, then there's no reason, no need to expand, or put out better product. Hell there's not any reason to make new product if the current one is doing good enough. Part of the reason why people keep on putting our newer and better product all the time is because they believe it can earn them even more money. Put a cap on how much they earn, and well, you've just taken away the reason to put out newer and better product.
You're not going to keep earning $10 million a year unless you've simply got several hundred mill in investments sitting around. And if you're not contributing or improving any at something like $10 mill a year, you certainly don't deserve to earn any more than that, IMHO.

Now, true, you could set the cap too low, and wind up with something silly, but we're not talking about anything like that. Set the minimum wage too low, and you have widespread poverty among the working poor; set it too high, and you start to increase unemployment among the unskilled.

Frankly, if the <0.1% of the population that already earns obscene amounts of money start taking longer vacations because they can't earn more than $10 mill a year or something like that, nobody else is going to miss it. Why, instead, you'll have to pay other people to do that work. Increasing the number of people paid at that high level. There's quite a supply of people who can perform at least part of a job that would earn $10+ mill. You think athletes and artists will suffer? Not a bit. They'll still be doing what they love if they're good at it.

My, what an interesting idea. Why, the production will all still be there! I'm starting to really like this maximum income cap idea.

Who's whining? I cleaned up MY vomit....

I've learned something hanging out around drunks, no matter how much they insist they've cleaned up their vomit, there's always crusty little bits that they missed.

People, in general are motivated by greed. They are motivated by the fact that if they do this, this and this, then they'll get more money. If they keep working hard to make other choices, and if they work out, then they'll make more money. In a capitalistic society, people will always strive to make more money. Now if you take away their ability, their reason to keep on doing better, to keep on improving, to keep on doing their duties to the shareholders, then what will happen?

you prove my point. Yes people are motivated by greed. And stockholders are people. And those stockholders want THEIR company to grow, to improve, to, well, MAKE THEM MONEY.

And if their executive officers stop working to make them money, they fire them. The motivation is simple, don't get fired.

You're not going to keep earning $10 million a year unless you've simply got several hundred mill in investments sitting around. And if you're not contributing or improving any at something like $10 mill a year, you certainly don't deserve to earn any more than that, IMHO.

Now, true, you could set the cap too low, and wind up with something silly, but we're not talking about anything like that. Set the minimum wage too low, and you have widespread poverty among the working poor; set it too high, and you start to increase unemployment among the unskilled.

Frankly, if the <0.1% of the population that already earns obscene amounts of money start taking longer vacations because they can't earn more than $10 mill a year or something like that, nobody else is going to miss it. Why, instead, you'll have to pay other people to do that work. Increasing the number of people paid at that high level. There's quite a supply of people who can perform at least part of a job that would earn $10+ mill. You think athletes and artists will suffer? Not a bit. They'll still be doing what they love if they're good at it.

My, what an interesting idea. Why, the production will all still be there! I'm starting to really like this maximum income cap idea.

Yea, but you'll still run into the same problem, just now you'll have different people doing it in cycles. Congratulations, you didn't solve the problem, you just passed it on to different people.

If there's nothing wrong with a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage?
I've thought for a long time that a maximum wage would be a good idea. Basically, it should be based upon the lowest paid worker in the employ of that person regardless of where they're employed. Say a 4000% cap above that lowest person's pay. If you have employees in some country making $1,000/year working 80hrs/week then the CEO's pay would be $40,000 per year max. Then the employer would have incentive to see that the employees do well. At this time the motivation is to keep the employees as low paid as possible, not a good thing for society.

you prove my point. Yes people are motivated by greed. And stockholders are people. And those stockholders want THEIR company to grow, to improve, to, well, MAKE THEM MONEY.

And if their executive officers stop working to make them money, they fire them. The motivation is simple, don't get fired.

Where is the company going to grow to with the cap?

Yea, but usually people who make such a high amount has tenure, or golden parachutes. Sure I'll be making $10 mil a year, but if I could make more than $10 mil, then I would be working hard to make more than $10 mil, but since I can't eh, why bother.

Because you will get fired for working hard and there will be 20 people in line behind you to do the same work you are doing for that income

Here's another question that's bugged me of late. The economic system we have all agreed upon is predicated on continual growth. If the economy, according to "leading indicators" (horoscopes dressed in expensive suits) grows -- GROWS -- at a low enough rate, prognosticators (also dressed in expensive suits) say it's recession or really super bad for everyone.

The question is, how is it possible to keep growing...forever? Don't you eventually hit either a ceiling of some sort or a point of diminishing returns? I'm certainly unversed in economic theories (and glad of it), but surely continued growth of ANYthing is eventually impossible to sustain, like cancer, waistlines or kudzu, isn't it? And growth as relative to what, exactly? Numbers like GDP and CPI and other initials as well are expected, nay, required to increase to ensure prosperity, but where does it end? For end, it must.

Where is the company going to grow to with the cap?

how in any way does a salary cap influence the growth of a company? This is a cap on PRIVATE earnings, not CORPORATE earnings.

Two RADICALLY different concepts. A private earnings cap won't do a thing to influence corporate earnings. In fact, corporate earnings would likely be higher...

I'm for progressive taxes. The more you earn the more you pay. So simple is that. If you have a lot of money you'll do fine with less but if you have none it's not that easy.
Minimun wage is very good but I don't think that maximum wage will worh the same way. It's better to tax them and the goverment will get richer making it possible to provide good social security, health care and so on.

Wait a minute....this isn't about not doing the work it takes to earn the $10 mil...it's "why go any further than that?". It's the idea that the maximum work, or innovation, or craftsmanship, or what have you, is worth (at a max) $10 mil. That there's no room for improvement...we can't go any further. We can't do any better. Why find out if you're not going to be rewarded appropriately?

The argument that "Well, you came up with some things that blow your old work away, but since you're already at the cap, it's not worth any more than what you're already earning." is "utter foolishness".
You think that if Michael Jordan only took home $10 mill a year, he'd've played less well?

Newsflash for you. Look at the Olympics. People who truly perform at the top level are not going to stop competing just because they can't earn any more than an obscene amount such that they could stick all their money from a single year's pay in a mattress and live high on the hog for the rest of their lives without even investing.

And then there's spreading the wealth. Your business raking in so much money that you're having trouble finding places to put it other than your own pocket? Congratulations! Prestige! Invest in security. By putting that money into wages and capital investment, you can make sure that you'll take home $10 million for the rest of your life even after you stop working.

Because you will get fired for working hard and there will be 20 people in line behind you to do the same work you are doing for that income

and they'll run into the same problem, get fired, and move in more people. We've now created the cycle of suckness.

I've learned something hanging out around drunks, no matter how much they insist they've cleaned up their vomit, there's always crusty little bits that they missed.

Well then, if you're that hungry...

Yea, but usually people who make such a high amount has tenure, or golden parachutes. Sure I'll be making $10 mil a year, but if I could make more than $10 mil, then I would be working hard to make more than $10 mil, but since I can't eh, why bother.

So the top seeded tenis player no longer has to work hard as they have reached the top??

Its called competition.

If you are earning 10Mill even if its capped there will be somone willing to do your job for 9 Million so if you aren't working hard enough to justify the 10 then you won't even be getting that.....

The point is there reaches a point where it is unhealthy not only for society but for companies.. it becomes an ever increasing cycle.

There reaches a point where the money is not really being used as money anymore but purely as a prestige. I earn 12 million how much do you earn.. oh only 9 million.. I must be better than you... ignore the fact that the 3 million extra he earned just gets invested and ignored.... it hasn't changed their life in any way other than for bragging rights.....

Is it worth sacraficing the improvment of thousands of peoples lives for the bragging rights of one individual??

There have been studies showing that CEOs and Serial killers share almost identical mental profiles... Its usually not really just hard work and smarts that gets you to the top but being able to take unnatural risks and a certain degree of nacisim that gets you there... is that really the kind of behaviour companies want to be encouraging in their employees??

Yea, but you'll still run into the same problem, just now you'll have different people doing it in cycles. Congratulations, you didn't solve the problem, you just passed it on to different people.
It's only a "cycle" if people keep mysteriously getting lazy and don't wise up to realize that "hey! If I don't work for my obscene salary, someone else will!" and start actually working.

and they'll run into the same problem, get fired, and move in more people. We've now created the cycle of suckness.

Why is it you accept the concept of human greed as a motivative factor but continue to believe that people are just going to willingly fuck off and get fired over and over and over again?

I'm very curious why you think that people who are smart enoug hto get to the very top of their profession are not smart enough to realize "hey, if I don't make my boss happy they're going to fire me".

and they'll run into the same problem, get fired, and move in more people. We've now created the cycle of suckness.
The "cycle of suckness" of lots of different people earning lots of money.

Doesn't sound sucky to me.

There have been studies showing that CEOs and Serial killers share almost identical mental profiles... Its usually not really just hard work and smarts that gets you to the top but being able to take unnatural risks and a certain degree of nacisim that gets you there... is that really the kind of behaviour companies want to be encouraging in their employees??

Eh, if it makes the shareholders more money, then why not.

Well then, if you're that hungry...

Only if there's a tub o' mustard around...

Only if there's a tub o' mustard around...

Well, pull up in your Rolls or Bentley and ask the magic question -- you shall be rewarded.

Why is it you accept the concept of human greed as a motivative factor but continue to believe that people are just going to willingly fuck off and get fired over and over and over again?

Let me ask you something. Lets say that your firm has a cap. You're the best lawyer of the firm, however your company will only allow you to make eh let's say $500 an hour. Now true there are other lawyers gunning for your job, but why put in extra effort if all you can do is $500 an hour? Now, let's add in a monkey wrench. Let's say that there's another firm, that pays lawyers with your experience at $600 an hour. Are you going to stay with your firm, or are you going to go over to the firm with $600 an hour? Hell, let's say the second firm has no cap. Are you still going to stay with the firm with the $500 an hour cap?

Personally if that happens to me, then the idiots who wants the $500 an hour cap, then they can have it. I'm going over to the $600 an hour and no cap. Will I work harder to advance in the new firm, yes, why, greed.

Well, pull up in your Rolls or Bentley and ask the magic question -- you shall be rewarded.

What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

...or is it...

"Who is Georges Clemenceau, Trebek."

The "cycle of suckness" of lots of different people earning lots of money.

Doesn't sound sucky to me.

Yea, but pretty soon we'll become a country of rich retired people, and companies would've moved to countries with no salary cap.

Implementation is impractical. There.

Implementation is impractical. There.

You win the thread. I'm sure even if a cap is implemented, CEOs all across the country will find loopholes. I know if I was a CEO I would! :D

Greed, it's a wonderful thing.

Eh, if it makes the shareholders more money, then why not.
In the long run, it doesn't. Sure, some investors get a short-run haul off of it, but more lose money over the long haul.

The shareholders usually wind up with the short end of the stick when CEOs are gruesomely overpaid and focused narrowly on their own income - time and time again. It was happening in the 80s... it was happening in the 90s... it's happening now.

The narcissism and obsessive behavior that leads to insane CEO salaries isn't aimed at helping the company - it's aimed at helping the CEO. No, those aren't behaviors you want to encourage. That sort of thing leads you to stuff like Enron.

Eh, if it makes the shareholders more money, then why not.

I can't imagine it does.... the more money spent on crazy wages the less making it to shareholders pockets.

Would people really make worse decisions if they were paid 10Million to make them rather than 11 Million?? Would the company really go down the toilet if they employed someone with a maximum of 10 Million earnable.. especially if no one else was able to be paid more??

If the top companies all offered the maximum amount then it would come down to getting the best CEO for the job as opposed to just the best CEO.

and they'll run into the same problem, get fired, and move in more people. We've now created the cycle of suckness.

Yeah I think eventually they will find someone that is driven enough to be content with 10 million a year

I work with people that work harder then hell every single year for 30 k a year

What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

...or is it...

"Who is Georges Clemenceau, Trebek."

Good guesses, but you'd have to go with the legendary TV commercial from the 80s:

Silver Corniche slides up to a Bentley...

sound of electric window going down

PRETENTIOUS PRICK #1 (richly accented): "Pardon me, but would you have any Grey Poupon?"

PRETENTIOUS PRICK #2 (possibly French): "But of course..."

Let me ask you something. Lets say that your firm has a cap. You're the best lawyer of the firm, however your company will only allow you to make eh let's say $500 an hour. Now true there are other lawyers gunning for your job, but why put in extra effort if all you can do is $500 an hour?

Will I lose my job if I do not continue to put in extra effort?

If yes, then I will.

If no, then the analogy is not comparable.


Now, let's add in a monkey wrench.

Unnecessary. A cap would be universal, or at least national. Now if you want to argue that creating a salary cap will turn some other countries into incorporation havens, and suddenly the top CEOs become residents of Aruba...well that is a bit more of a valid argument.

Yeah I think eventually they will find someone that is driven enough to be content with 10 million a year

I work with people that work harder then hell every single year for 30 k a year

What do people with money want, more money.

Let me ask you something. Lets say that your firm has a cap. You're the best lawyer of the firm, however your company will only allow you to make eh let's say $500 an hour. Now true there are other lawyers gunning for your job, but why put in extra effort if all you can do is $500 an hour? Now, let's add in a monkey wrench. Let's say that there's another firm, that pays lawyers with your experience at $600 an hour. Are you going to stay with your firm, or are you going to go over to the firm with $600 an hour? Hell, let's say the second firm has no cap. Are you still going to stay with the firm with the $500 an hour cap?

Personally if that happens to me, then the idiots who wants the $500 an hour cap, then they can have it. I'm going over to the $600 an hour and no cap. Will I work harder to advance in the new firm, yes, why, greed.

You know, you're right but you coul've taken another example instead of a lawyer, it would sound much better then.

Unnecessary. A cap would be universal, or at least national. Now if you want to argue that creating a salary cap will turn some other countries into incorporation havens, and suddenly the top CEOs become residents of Aruba...well that is a bit more of a valid argument.

Well let's argue that then. Let's say that the UN didn't implement the cap, but the USA. Let's also say that countries like India, Aruba, etc. didn't implement a cap. What will happen now?

You know, you're right but you coul've taken another example instead of a lawyer, it would sound much better then.

Well he's a lawyer, and I was trying (and failed apparently) to relate my message to him by using this example.

What do people with money want, more money.

I believe the question is "What do people want..."

It's pretty damn common to the human condition for people to desire more power, money is just power not enforced at the point of a spear.

You win the thread. I'm sure even if a cap is implemented, CEOs all across the country will find loopholes. I know if I was a CEO I would! :D

Greed, it's a wonderful thing.

It’s not even as if I’m against the idea on principle. I just can’t see it working.

I mean, the CEO of Disney makes one dollar a year, but he gets millions in stock options and “gifts.”

You think that if Michael Jordan only took home $10 mill a year, he'd've played less well?

Newsflash for you. Look at the Olympics. People who truly perform at the top level are not going to stop competing just because they can't earn any more than an obscene amount such that they could stick all their money from a single year's pay in a mattress and live high on the hog for the rest of their lives without even investing.

And then there's spreading the wealth. Your business raking in so much money that you're having trouble finding places to put it other than your own pocket? Congratulations! Prestige! Invest in security. By putting that money into wages and capital investment, you can make sure that you'll take home $10 million for the rest of your life even after you stop working.

NO, I think MJ would have stayed where he could earn the $10 mil and never risk getting payed less. Of course, if he saw explosive growth in the team as far as revenue was concerned, he be right in demanding to be compensated for that growth. The idea is that if the company does better, the people in responsible for the "doing better" get to do better as well.

As far as your Olympics analogy, it kinda falls short. There are only 3 prizes available to all the competitors in any category. Of course, there are records that can be broken, but that tends to tie in directly with what prize you'll win. Besides, I've never heard of olympians being paid for competing in the games themselves.

Yea, but pretty soon we'll become a country of rich retired people, and companies would've moved to countries with no salary cap.
Wilgrove... you don't quite grasp that there aren't really "countries with no salary cap."

The tax code and culture of America are especially geared towards the accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth in a very few hands. That's why the Forbes list is almost entirely American.

And no, I don't think production will suffer as a result of exporting CEO jobs...

...and being a country of rich retired people sounds nice. When can we expect this?

You know, you're right but you coul've taken another example instead of a lawyer, it would sound much better then.

I am, in fact, a lawyer...

It’s not even as if I’m against the idea on principle. I just can’t see it working.

I mean, the CEO of Disney makes one dollar a year, but he gets millions in stock options and “gifts.”

One of the loopholes around the cap!

Well let's argue that then. Let's say that the UN didn't implement the cap, but the USA. Let's also say that countries like India, Aruba, etc. didn't implement a cap. What will happen now?

do you think that from a practical matter those nations can sustain salaries of the level that would be concerning us here?

Wilgrove... you don't quite grasp that there aren't really "countries with no salary cap."

The tax code and culture of America are especially geared towards the accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth in a very few hands. That's why the Forbes list is almost entirely American.

And no, I don't think production will suffer as a result of exporting CEO jobs...

...and being a country of rich retired people sounds nice. When can we expect this?

Yea, it sounds nice, till the people die off and the company re-located to another country.

as for the relocation idea...it would depend on how serious the government would be to this project.

Passing laws that state "the united states will not accept any imports from any company, corporation, conglomerate, or other business entity in which one or more employees of that entity earns an annual salary of greater than 10 million U.S. dollars" would be within the legislature's purview.

do you think that from a practical matter those nations can sustain salaries of the level that would be concerning us here?

They seem to be doing a fine job of it in India, China and some African countries. and beside, if companies move to another country, they'll be relocating the jobs there too, more people work in that country, the more money the company makes, the more money get pumped into that country's economy system, the better the country get, and the more it can sustain the company. They'll learn from the mistake of the country that the company came from, will not implement a salary cap, and well there we go.

What do people with money want, more money.
Then rather then letting that sort of game spiral out of control unchecked maybe it best to let some fresh Ideas in

When an insane amount of money like that is no longer enough to motivate you maybe it is time for a fresh face around the office ...

as for the relocation idea...it would depend on how serious the government would be to this project.

Passing laws that state "the united states will not accept any imports from any company, corporation, conglomerate, or other business entity in which one or more employees of that entity earns an annual salary of greater than 10 million U.S. dollars" would be within the legislature's purview.

Of course companies could work with private companies like UPS/DHL/Fed-Ex to set up post in countries where the USA does accept imports, and that problem is loopholed too.

They seem to be doing a fine job of it in India, China and some African countries. and beside, if companies move to another country, they'll be relocating the jobs there too, more people work in that country, the more money the company makes, the more money get pumped into that country's economy system, the better the country get, and the more it can sustain the company. They'll learn from the mistake of the country that the company came from, will not implement a salary cap, and well there we go.

and when to ensure this doesn't happen, and to perserve the salary cap, the American government puts a block on the importation of these foreign goods and services for companies with these salaries?

There are ways to implement it, depending on how serious one wants to be about it.

Then rather then letting that sort of game spiral out of control unchecked maybe it best to let some fresh Ideas in

When an insane amount of money like that is no longer enough to motivate you maybe it is time for a fresh face around the office ...

That would be up for the shareholders to decide. Of course if I was a CEO, I would protect myself by buying majority share.

Well let's argue that then. Let's say that the UN didn't implement the cap, but the USA. Let's also say that countries like India, Aruba, etc. didn't implement a cap. What will happen now?

I'd have an awesome get-rich-quck scheme.

Yes, Andaluciae would find itself a real country.

and when to ensure this doesn't happen, and to perserve the salary cap, the American government puts a block on the importation of these foreign goods and services for companies with these salaries?

There are ways to implement it, depending on how serious one wants to be about it.

I already answered that.

NO, I think MJ would have stayed where he could earn the $10 mil and never risk getting payed less. Of course, if he saw explosive growth in the team as far as revenue was concerned, he be right in demanding to be compensated for that growth. The idea is that if the company does better, the people in responsible for the "doing better" get to do better as well.
After he hit the big time, MJ earned most of his money from endorsements. I don't think he would've played any less well on $10 million - why? Competitive spirit.
As far as your Olympics analogy, it kinda falls short. There are only 3 prizes available to all the competitors in any category. Of course, there are records that can be broken, but that tends to tie in directly with what prize you'll win. Besides, I've never heard of olympians being paid for competing in the games themselves.
Right. Olympians aren't paid for competing in the games.

And yet they still do compete. Many Olympic athletes, in fact, earn fairly little money - yet still they strive to compete at the highest level. The pursuit of excellence typical of great athletes, scientists, and artists is not something that would be hampered in the slightest by something like a $10 million salary cap. The only thing that hampers them economically isn't not getting paid obscenely enough; it's not being able to make ends meet.

It's not a question of whether or not they play that we talk about - for example - high athlete salaries; it's a question, usually, of where and for who.

Of course companies could work with private companies like UPS/DHL/Fed-Ex to set up post in countries where the USA does accept imports, and that problem is loopholed too.

yes, but I didn't say blockade the country. I said ban importation of the goods from the company. The government can do that if they wish, regulation of interstate commerce and foreign goods and all that.

And UPS/DHL/Fed-ex are still bound by federal regulations regarding shipping, and if federal law says "you can not bring goods from company X into this country" you better believe they'd follow them.

Now of course we're starting to build legislature to the extreme here, and making a simple theory complex in practice. But it's DOABLE.

One of the loopholes around the cap!
Which is a fine reason to close loopholes. Really, Wilgrove, tax code loopholes are never a good thing.

That would be up for the shareholders to decide. Of course if I was a CEO, I would protect myself by buying majority share.

and where are you going to get that kind of money?

And, the funny part here is this. If you are majority shareholder, then company profits = your profits. Why would you then give yourself a large salary and reduce your corporate earnings? If you control majority share it's actually financially better to pay yourself nothing and generate higher dividends.

yes, but I didn't say blockade the country. I said ban importation of the goods from the company. The government can do that if they wish, regulation of interstate commerce and foreign goods and all that.

And UPS/DHL/Fed-ex are still bound by federal regulations regarding shipping, and if federal law says "you can not bring goods from company X into this country" you better believe they'd follow them.

Now of course we're starting to build legislature to the extreme here, and making a simple theory complex in practice. But it's DOABLE.

I could loophole that too by creating a fake company inside the USA and having all of my product "come" from that company. :D I would've so rocked in the business world.

That would be up for the shareholders to decide. Of course if I was a CEO, I would protect myself by buying majority share.

I agree on a freedom standpoint that SHOULD be policy set by the company

I just dont buy into the no motivation for that sort of money ... to continue earning it anyways.

Let's back up for a minute here. Has anyone adequately expressed the reason for making the change(s) advocated in the original post? Why are we talking about making a fundamental change to the terms of how any one person is compensated for the work they do?

Which is a fine reason to close loopholes. Really, Wilgrove, tax code loopholes are never a good thing.

Like I said, humans are greedy selfish entities.

I already answered that.

no, you answered how you would get your imports into the US if the government stops importing from the country of your incorporation.

I'm asking what you would do if the government decides to not let in goods from your COMPANY.

I agree on a freedom standpoint that SHOULD be policy set by the company

I just dont buy into the no motivation for that sort of money ... to continue earning it anyways.

Ok, let me try this again.

Year one: I try hard because I know if I do then I'll advanced and get paid more.
Year Two: I try harder, because once again I get to advance and paid more.

-skip a few years-

Year 20: Now I'm CEO at the Salary cap of 10 mil. Why try harder than I am right now?

I could loophole that too by creating a fake company inside the USA and having all of my product "come" from that company. :D I would've so rocked in the business world.

violating federal law and being sent to federal prison rocks the business world about as much as Enron did.

and where are you going to get that kind of money?

And, the funny part here is this. If you are majority shareholder, then company profits = your profits. Why would you then give yourself a large salary and reduce your corporate earnings? If you control majority share it's actually financially better to pay yourself nothing and generate higher dividends.
Why earn 51% of the profits of the company as a shareholder when you could steal 100% as CEO? The only reason is the tax code.

Which is one reason why shareholder voting should be reweighted based on power indices rather than translated as flat percentages. Really, voting theory taught us that lesson decades ago for the real world, business needs to catch up.

no, you answered how you would get your imports into the US if the government stops importing from the country of your incorporation.

I'm asking what you would do if the government decides to not let in goods from your COMPANY.

already answered that.

Ok, let me try this again.

Year one: I try hard because I know if I do then I'll advanced and get paid more.
Year Two: I try harder, because once again I get to advance and paid more.

-skip a few years-

Year 20: Now I'm CEO at the Salary cap of 10 mil. Why try harder than I am right now?

because CEO stands for "chief executive officer" and thus has a duty to stockholders, and should you be derilict in that duty, you're not going to be CEO anymore?

Greed creates two motivations. First to get more than you currently have. Second to ensure you don't end up with less than you currently have.

already answered that.

your answer was you'd break the law. If that's your answer then why bother to have any conversation at all?

Ok, let me try this again.

Year one: I try hard because I know if I do then I'll advanced and get paid more.
Year Two: I try harder, because once again I get to advance and paid more.

-skip a few years-

Year 20: Now I'm CEO at the Salary cap of 10 mil. Why try harder than I am right now?
Whee! Retirement at age 40!

Why? Because if you don't, maybe someone else will, and you'll get demoted back to senior VP.

Seriously, the idea that you can get away with sitting on your ass and earning $10 mill a year is obscene.

violating federal law and being sent to federal prison rocks the business world about as much as Enron did.

Yea, but if I'm in another country, then the USA has no jurisdiction over me as a private citizen. Also, my fake company could be headed by a completely different group of people who "trade" with mine. Honestly, anything you say, I can find a loop hole for.

Whee! Retirement at age 40!

Why? Because if you don't, maybe someone else will, and you'll get demoted back to senior VP.

Seriously, the idea that you can get away with sitting on your ass and earning $10 mill a year is obscene.

You can if you're tenured.

Yea, but if I'm in another country, then the USA has no jurisdiction over me as a private citizen. Also, my fake company could be headed by a completely different group of people who "trade" with mine. Honestly, anything you say, I can find a loop hole for.
If you live in the USA, the USA has jurisdiction over you.

If you live in the USA, the USA has jurisdiction over you.

but my company isn't in the USA, and I don't live in the USA.

You can if you're tenured.
Very few tenured profs earn anywhere near that much as a base salary.

Second, tenure isn't immunity against being fired for doing nothing - it simply makes it very hard to fire you from your position, which probably earns you from $50-$500K a year and has explicit obligations attached. Try again.

Not to mention that tenure has diddly to do with income caps.

Yea, but if I'm in another country, then the USA has no jurisdiction over me as a private citizen.

They have in rem jurisdiction over your inventory, which is what's making you money.

Also, my fake company could be headed by a completely different group of people who "trade" with mine. Honestly, anything you say, I can find a loop hole for.

Um, no. If the law says "importation of any and all goods into the United States produced by a business entity that has employees who make an annual salary of greater than 10 million is banned" then no matter how you set it up, whether it's a purchase, or a trade, or a loan, or whatever, the minute those goods cross the border it's in violation of law.

Within this context that's not a loophole, that's illegal. And the people you trade with get arrested. And your inventory gets seized. And you have a bench warrant placed on you if you ever return to the country.

Greed creates two motivations. First to get more than you currently have. second to ensure you don't end up with less than you currently have.

That is true for the second one, which is why when someone reaches an affluences position, they often take steps to protect themselves, such as golden parachutes, buy majority share, whatever they need to do to stay in power.

but my company isn't in the USA, and I don't live in the USA.
Then congratulations, you're somewhere else. So what? Your company's goods have import tariffs/duties on them, of course, which means that companies within the US have a competitive advantage on you.

And, of course, with a CEO salary cap, they're much more competitive. Oops.

They have in rem jurisdiction over your inventory, which is what's making you money.



Um, no. If the law says "importation of any and all goods into the United States produced by a business entity that has employees who make an annual salary of greater than 10 million is banned" then no matter how you set it up, whether it's a purchase, or a trade, or a loan, or whatever, the minute those goods cross the border it's in violation of law.

Within this context that's not a loophole, that's illegal.

Well you are right there, and when you're right you're right. However, I doubt it will go to this extreme since such legislation (after the cap has crippled the economy) would send the United States into a depression it hasn't seen since the 30's.

but my company isn't in the USA, and I don't live in the USA.

As I said, YOU might avoid jail, provided you NEVER enter the United States and the country you live i doesn't turn you over to the United States.

However the US would have in rem jurisdiction over your inventory, and specific jurisdiction on your company, as well as have personal jurisdiction over your business buddies, who will be spending 20 years in levinworth for their trouble.

Then congratulations, you're somewhere else. So what? Your company's goods have import tariffs/duties on them, of course, which means that companies within the US have a competitive advantage on you.

And, of course, with a CEO salary cap, they're much more competitive. Oops.

Eh not really, because I am still motivated to make more than $10 mil. I can still make a better product than the other company and import it in. You really should look at the auto industry to see what I'm talking about.

Well you are right there, and when you're right you're right. However, I doubt it will go to this extreme since such legislation (after the cap has crippled the economy) would send the United States into a depression it hasn't seen since the 30's.

well, maybe. I never said I was in favor of the cap, only that it is doable, if one truly wishes to take the necessary legislative steps to ensure it.

personally the idea of a cap bugs me on a theoretical level, but I think it could work if implemented.

As I said, YOU might avoid jail, provided you NEVER enter the United States and the country you live i doesn't turn you over to the United States.

However the US would have in rem jurisdiction over your inventory, and specific jurisdiction on your company, as well as have personal jurisdiction over your business buddies, who will be spending 20 years in levinworth for their trouble.

Of course one would have to wonder what impacts this would have on the USA market. They've already driven alot of companies with the salary cap, and now they've banned those same companies, well the USA really has screwed itself. There are other markets beside the USA, China, UK, EU, Japan, Canada, etc.

well, maybe. I never said I was in favor of the cap, only that it is doable, if one truly wishes to take the necessary legislative steps to ensure it.

personally the idea of a cap bugs me on a theoretical level, but I think it could work if implemented.

Well not really, because if one really would want to get to the USA market. They could have their original company, then a company in a country that does trade with the USA, and my country, put up shop there, and then set up shop in the USA. Of course the cost would probably outweigh the benefits.

Of course one would have to wonder what impacts this would have on the USA market. They've already driven alot of companies with the salary cap, and now they've banned those same companies, well the USA really has screwed itself. There are other markets beside the USA, China, UK, EU, Japan, Canada, etc.'

The counter argument is, if you remove the US as a market, most of these companies wouldn't be able to make enough money to reach the cap IN THE FIRST PLACE. IE the motivation would be, if you lose the american market, then you don't have to worry about the cap, your company won't be making it. But again, that's speculative

The end problem is, as you said, greed. yes I might work hard to keep my job at 10 million, but if all I have to do is reincorporate in canada to make 15 for the same amount of effort well...that's a no brainer.

You'd see incorporation flight. Pretty badly would be my guess. And while there are ways to discourage it, it would come down to a fine line. Could a CEO make more money without the cap, and be barred from US markets then it could selling to the US, and living with the cap. If removal of the US market would hurt the corporation in such a way that the CEO couldn't reach that cap anyway...then their best interest is ot live with the cap.

IF the ceo can bugger off somewhere else, not deal with the US, and still make more than 10 mil, then we've just screwed ourselves as a country.

Eh not really, because I am still motivated to make more than $10 mil. I can still make a better product than the other company and import it in. You really should look at the auto industry to see what I'm talking about.
You personally earning more than $10 million isn't going to give you a competitive advantage worth measuring.

Look long and hard at the auto industry. There are two ways that companies become competitive in spite of import tariffs:

Better engineering teams. This means depth. Lots of people earning $80,000-$500,000 plus solid benefits for being crack engineers and developers, not a handful of CEOs earning lots of money.

Cheaper manufacturing. This either means more efficient manufacturing techniques (again, better engineers/designers laying out your plants and designing the machinery) or much cheaper labor within the factories - which means paying people less, not more, and has nothing to do with CEOs earning a bajillion dollars.

'

The counter argument is, if you remove the US as a market, most of these companies wouldn't be able to make enough money to reach the cap IN THE FIRST PLACE. IE the motivation would be, if you lose the american market, then you don't have to worry about the cap, your company won't be making it. But again, that's speculative

The end problem is, as you said, greed. yes I might work hard to keep my job at 10 million, but if all I have to do is reincorporate in canada to make 15 for the same amount of effort well...that's a no brainer.

You'd see incorporation flight. Pretty badly would be my guess. And while there are ways to discourage it, it would come down to a fine line. Could a CEO make more money without the cap, and be barred from US markets then it could selling to the US, and living with the cap. If removal of the US market would hurt the corporation in such a way that the CEO couldn't reach that cap anyway...then their best interest is ot live with the cap.

IF the ceo can bugger off somewhere else, not deal with the US, and still make more than 10 mil, then we've just screwed ourselves as a country.

You said it perfectly. :)

Well not really, because if one really would want to get to the USA market. They could have their original company, then a company in a country that does trade with the USA, and my country, put up shop there, and then set up shop in the USA. Of course the cost would probably outweigh the benefits.

but then the goods that entered the US would have to come fully, and totally from the second company and not in any way be affected by the first.

Of course, then again, if you are in an industry, it wouldn't be TOO hard to set up two companies making the same product, but keep the cap on one, and in that one the CEO would be majority shareholder and pay himself...I dunno, a dollar, but at the same time he's also CEO of the other company, that does not deal with the US and is being paid over cap.

You personally earning more than $10 million isn't going to give you a competitive advantage worth measuring.

Look long and hard at the auto industry. There are two ways that companies become competitive in spite of import tariffs:

Better engineering teams. This means depth. Lots of people earning $80,000-$500,000 plus solid benefits for being crack engineers and developers, not a handful of CEOs earning lots of money.

Cheaper manufacturing. This either means more efficient manufacturing techniques (again, better engineers/designers laying out your plants and designing the machinery) or much cheaper labor within the factories - which means paying people less, not more, and has nothing to do with CEOs earning a bajillion dollars.


1. Who do you think implements those ideas that I bolded.

2. What do you think the outcome is when those ideas that I bolded are a success?

but then the goods that entered the US would have to come fully, and totally from the second company and not in any way be affected by the first.

Of course, then again, if you are in an industry, it wouldn't be TOO hard to set up two companies making the same product, but keep the cap on one, and in that one the CEO would be majority shareholder and pay himself...I dunno, a dollar, but at the same time he's also CEO of the other company, that does not deal with the US and is being paid over cap.

Well it's just an idea, like I said, the cost would probably outweigh the benefits.

I don't really buy the argument that a cap of this sort would hinder motivation. I just...don't. 30 grand a DAY buys a WHOLE lot of motivation.

I think the bigger problem is incorporation flight, moving to other countries. And while there are ways to discourage that...well once a company leaves the country, that's pretty much it. You can ban it from dealing with us, but if it can still make more money...well there's nothing much we can do.

There is an economic argument about niche filling. If say someone makes widgets, but the ceo has a higher salary and goes off to india, and we stop dealing with them, suddenly we're without widgets in our economy.

Well there's a demand and no supply, so economic theory suggests that someone is going to come along and start making widgets, and then we'll have them back.

I don't really buy the argument that a cap of this sort would hinder motivation. I just...don't. 30 grand a DAY buys a WHOLE lot of motivation.

I think the bigger problem is incorporation flight, moving to other countries. And while there are ways to discourage that...well once a company leaves the country, that's pretty much it. You can ban it from dealing with us, but if it can still make more money...well there's nothing much we can do.

There is an economic argument about niche filling. If say someone makes widgets, but the ceo has a higher salary and goes off to india, and we stop dealing with them, suddenly we're without widgets in our economy.

Well there's a demand and no supply, so economic theory suggests that someone is going to come along and start making widgets, and then we'll have them back.

Yea, but won't the second guy do the same thing that the first guy did and go off to China?

Yea, but won't the second guy do the same thing that the first guy did and go off to China?

no, cause china's already got all the widgets they need from the first guy.

Or if not we'll keep doing that until they do.

Of course, that leaves the US a few years behind by the time everything stablizes.

no, cause china's already got all the widgets they need from the first guy.

Or if not we'll keep doing that until they do.

Of course, that leaves the US a few years behind by the time everything stablizes.

In which people will start going to Canada to buy the newer and improved widgets over the US widgets.

1. Who do you think implements those ideas that I bolded.
Hm? Usually not the CEO. Actually recruiting, managing, and retaining these crack engineering teams is done at the base and middle managerial levels. Figuring out how much money needs to be allocated to them overall for financial success is a job most analysts will do for substantially less than $1 million, let alone $10 million.

There's lots of tedious management involved with many large engineering teams, but that is - again - nothing particularly exceptional in terms of individual responsibilities and skills. In fact, there's a much larger supply of middle managers and auditors available to fill the jobs of making sure everybody gets the right sized slice and nobody steals you blind than the supply of crack engineering teams.
2. What do you think the outcome is when those ideas that I bolded are a success?
The outcome? You're able to lower cost of your product enough to produce an equivalent product at a lower price, which - with tariffs - becomes similar in price, i.e., competitive.

How competitive depends inversely on what you shell out off the top to CEOs and how much profit you want the company to make.

In which people will start going to Canada to buy the newer and improved widgets over the US widgets.

no, because remember, importation of those widgets from those companies would be illegal. Mostly we just start getting stuck with inferior goods.

no, because remember, importation of those widgets from those companies would be illegal.

True, but that doesn't stop people from smuggling!

I don't really buy the argument that a cap of this sort would hinder motivation. I just...don't. 30 grand a DAY buys a WHOLE lot of motivation.

I think the bigger problem is incorporation flight, moving to other countries. And while there are ways to discourage that...well once a company leaves the country, that's pretty much it. You can ban it from dealing with us, but if it can still make more money...well there's nothing much we can do.
The main reason to do that is dodging taxes. The main way to discourage it is by closing the tax loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes by incorporating overseas.

And if they want to stop doing business with the US entirely, well, that's that. Once they're outside, it doesn't matter, so long as they pay the appropriate taxes on their US holdings and US business.

True, but that doesn't stop people from smuggling!

ehh, black markets are generally not big enough to affect in any substantial way an economy the size of the US.

You would be able to stop flight to an extent by banning stock ownership in banned companies but it might not stop new companies from forming outside.

And if they want to stop doing business with the US entirely, well, that's that. Once they're outside, it doesn't matter, so long as they pay the appropriate taxes on their US holdings and US business.

That's what we're talking about, stopping dealing with the US entirely, which may be what happens. The problem is if that it happens on a wide enough scale, it might do enough damage to the economy to make it not so simple as "oh well, that's that".

although it does lead to the question over whether or not a CEO who gets a high enough salary to ban that company from doing business with the united states would remain CEO for long.

CEOs still have to hear from their stockholders, whatever the country, and closing your company out from one of the worlds largests markets so you could make a few more million dollars is not a good way to keep your job.

Yea, but won't the second guy do the same thing that the first guy did and go off to China?

yeah cause its easier to move a whole company and and all the staff overseas than to pay one guy less money?? Thats sounds likely.....

Hm? Usually not the CEO. Actually recruiting, managing, and retaining these crack engineering teams is done at the base and middle managerial levels. Figuring out how much money needs to be allocated to them overall for financial success is a job most analysts will do for substantially less than $1 million, let alone $10 million.

There's lots of tedious management involved with many large engineering teams, but that is - again - nothing particularly exceptional in terms of individual responsibilities and skills. In fact, there's a much larger supply of middle managers and auditors available to fill the jobs of making sure everybody gets the right sized slice and nobody steals you blind than the supply of crack engineering teams.

The outcome? You're able to lower cost of your product enough to produce an equivalent product at a lower price, which - with tariffs - becomes similar in price, i.e., competitive.

How competitive depends inversely on what you shell out off the top to CEOs and how much profit you want the company to make.


What a CEO usually does is networking.

They make sure they are talking to the right people... smoozing with other people with vaste amounts of money... and that the people under them are doing a good job... and be a figurehead.

Thats sort of it. Most of the direction of the company comes from below.. the CEO is just there to make sure that they look like they were the one with the idea so that the media doesn't have to focus on too many people. If the media can just focus on one person they can make it easier to sum up the skills found in the company as a whole. This allows investors to determine where the company is headed by looking at the direction of one person rather than a whole heap.

Thats why you have to pay them lots.. so that people pay enough attention to them to know what their take on issues are.. that way they feel they can predict with confidence the direction that the company will take.

I can't see how paying them 10 Million instead of 11 Million would effect greatly the amount of attention they would get

That's a little heartless, and given that most wealth comes from luck rather than effort, a little wide of the mark too.

Dear sir, you are so wrong. I work with buying and selling private companies and most owners who receive quite much money for their companies have worked 10-15 years, very hard, led their companies through crisis, risked everything. And managed to succeed.

Most wealth comes from:
Entreneurship (not just being in right place in right time but exercising that moment)
Effort;

also it comes from Entreneurship coupled with low moral standards (killing your partners in business venture will greatly increase your stake in that venture:mad: )

Sad to see that this discussion has descended into ludicrous comments about banning the importation of widgets and other inane garbage…

The reason why people are paid craploads of money is because the company paying them wants to attract and retain the best talent. The primary way someone attracts or retains talent is by paying them more money. If there is a salary cap (presuming this cap takes non-monetary compensations into account as well), how do you attract better talent?

Suppose I need someone who is going to devote their lives to my company, they need to put in 80 hours a week and work their asses off. Anyone with the talent I need can find hundreds of companies who will pay them to work only 40 hours a week. Both companies being constrained by limits on compensation, how exactly do I convince someone to undertake an incredibly stressful and otherwise unrewarding job if they can have an easy job for the same level of compensation? There may be a couple of odd people who would do it for the challenge of it, but probably only for a short time, and the number of firms desperate for such input far exceeds those with the talent for the job. Now you have a tricky situation in which such stressful jobs are banned – and thus businesses do not do nearly as well as they could, which kills the economy.

Joe Blow, the high-school dropout, is simply not worth very much and is paid accordingly. Jack Welsh (former CEO of GE) was worth one hell of a lot of money because he had the knowledge and experience to run a massive corporation, and was paid accordingly. I see nothing wrong with that. If you think just anyone could be the CEO of a massive multinational corporation, the only thing you want to hear is “yes comrade, these capitalists are evil baby-eaters” because you obviously do not understand anything about how the world works.

While someone doesn’t need $150 million a year to survive, someone doesn’t need a television to survive either, yet a lot of people have them. If you want to argue that someone can only have what they need to survive (which is what follows from this whole capping logic) then who determines what is necessary and why shouldn’t anyone be allowed luxuries?

Prohibiting people from making money is immoral and unethical. It is as simple as that.
It does not matter if you think they make too much, you are not the one paying them, so you do not get a say in it. If you want to claim it is in the name of social justice, what gives you the right to decide what is ‘just’? So what if a CEO makes ten thousand times what the lowest paid employee does, does cutting the salary of the CEO somehow make the guy flipping burgers so much more productive that he is worth more?

If you want to attract better employees you have to compensate them better. It doesn’t matter if the person is already making $10mil a year; better compensation is still motivation to take a job they might otherwise not want to do. It encourages people to do better and make sacrifices they would not otherwise make. If you say ‘so what, they take a vacation, what’s the big deal?’ then you need to realize that companies rely upon those high earners to make their money – without those people around, they do not function as well. If there is a cap, the only way they can get someone willing to do that onerous job is to hire someone who is not as capable (and thus more hungry for that money) and the company has now hired someone less competent. Congratulations, you have now put the most important jobs in the hands of the not-quite-competent.

I started writing with a few good points I wanted to make, but am so tired I’m not even sure I made any, much less that this is a coherent rambling. My apologies if it meanders through the issues.

That ain't an equal opportunity in my mind.

Its fine to be asperational.. but it helps to be realistic.
No, "realism" is what keeps people down.

I despise determinism of all kinds. I find the idea abhorrent that my life has been pre-planned by the fact that I wasn't born into a rich family. I've got big plans in life, and just because I have to give away most of my wages to my parents so my family can pay the rent does not mean that I have to limit myself to anything.

You cannot and should not give people an excuse not to do the best they can. The fact that even one single poor person can become rich means that everybody can do it, if they only make the right decisions at the right time.

Everyone has the same opportunites in life? Think about that for a moment: everyone benefits from the same education, the same parenting and the same cultural capital? Of course they don't.
I'll start a thread about luck (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12106631), because I've long wanted to figure it out. I'll stay with my traditional canon for now.

Luck is nothing but successfully taking an opportunity. I agree that some opportunities may be bigger than others, and it would be silly to argue that bigger opportunities don't tend to come to those who have wealthy (no, strike that - make it "competent") parents.

I say "competent", because the only reason poor kids tend to be poor adults is because their parents fail to instill the right sort of values in their kids. It's not actually like 'the system' prevents poor kids from doing well at school, getting a scholarship and finishing with a masters degree.

It's parents who fail to teach their kids that they can be anything they want to be, if they only work hard enough. It's parents who fail to act if their child has trouble at school.

Believe it or not, but wealth and those sort of values tend to come together, and that's why rich parents tend to have children who do better.

At the same time, you will find that if rich parents fail to give their kids that sort of attitude, those kids are only saved by the fact that you can get financial advisors and accountants these days who prevent them from screwing away all the cash.

Now, okay Bill Gates has made himself even richer but he was afforded opportunities that other people wouldn't have.
And then look at what Bill Gates did to become rich. Hell, it wasn't even the fact that he went to a flash uni. He just had the vision to put a good idea into practice at the time.

The only thing you could claim is that his parents gave him a bit of starting capital to fund his company's start-up costs, I don't know the specifics. But that isn't strictly necessary, that's why there's investment banking.

Let's say you really push this and mantain that it's your right to enjoy the good decisions of your forefathers - what if your family is wealthy off the back of slavery?
Then I may well wish to give some of that money away, though I wouldn't be obliged to do so, unless the relevant legal facts can be established.

Inheritances are essentially gifts. They're presents from their parents to their children.

Now, you may well want to argue that the receiver of a gift doesn't deserve what they got. Or that it's not fair that someone else didn't get that gift.

But could you really justify for yourself to barge into a home and dictate to people what they can and can't give to people for Christmas, for example?

I'm rambling now, so in conclusion: The assertation "Unless you believe in fate, I think you would accept it when I say that every person has the same amount of "luck" in life (as in opportunities that come along)." is completely and demonstratably wrong.
As you said, you interpret the word differently to me. That's why I don't like it, it's such a pointless, ill-defined and irrational concept.

Hm.

No answer to my "how is continual growth of an economy possible or sustainable" question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12106030&postcount=148). Telling.

Welfare and minimum wage are in no way evil.
Sometimes people are the victims of circumstances beyond their control.
You may ask why I have this opinion.
Irrelevant.


Tough shit. You're still evil. You benefitted from an unjust law that interfered with the right of free association and private property. Such laws are evil and illegitimate regardless of their effects.

[quote]As for minimum wage if you do any research on the subject you will find that when minimum wage is increased it actually increases jobs as the people that are being paid a higher wage put that money back into the economy buying things like food and clothes, and if they have enough money, a night out on the town or tickets to a ball game.
Both wrong and irrelevant. It's not government's place to help the economy along; it's government's place to stay the hell out of the way no matter what.

Of those who want the rich not to be taxed such as 'Linus and Lucy' and the guy who was pleased he had a shot at earning $15million and he wanted all of it. Indeed, of those who claim that hard work brings wealth I have to ask a variation on "if you're so smart why ain't ya a millionaire?".

If hard work and application is all that is needed, are you wealthy? And if not, why not?

Because it takes time.

Because that's a straw man, and I never made such an argument.

Need I go on?

I'm not arguing that because you're not wealthy it means that no one can be.

I'm just saying I don't think it's a co-incidence that the people I know who are fairly wealthy (and I include myself in that) recognise why they're wealthy and those who think it's all down to hard work are on this forum bitching about being taxed on money they're never going to earn.

It not enough that you work hard, you also have to work smart. You have to do things, and present things to your boss, stockholders, etc. that you are worth more than your other employees.

No, you get paid for doing your job, and doing it well. If your job is to do manual labor, well, there's only so much you can do, and there are plenty of other people willing to take your place (it's called competition, my friend).

You can thank the Teacher's Union. Good teachers aren't allowed to be paid more than an average teacher, and bad teachers can't be paid less than an average teacher (tell me how this makes sense).

And of course they make more than they did 20 years ago. It's called inflation, young grasshopper. It tends to drive up wages.

What a great way to rationalize inequality. Just say that they deserve to be poor and you can rationalize away the fact the 90% of people are being screwed. :headbang:

Its called competition for the laborer, and state protection for the wealthy. Not cool. Inflation is nowhere near a factor of 50 over 20 years. CEOS today are not worth 50 times more than CEOs twenty years ago.

Hm.

No answer to my "how is continual growth of an economy possible or sustainable" question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12106030&postcount=148). Telling.

The reason why nobody was answering is not because this is some amazingly insightful and mind-blowing comment. Quite the opposite.

Economies can grow indefinitely, unless you are of the opinion that we will reach a point where everything that can be invented has been invented and that any new ideas are impossible as well as the planet operating at absolute perfect 100% efficiency.

ehh, black markets are generally not big enough to affect in any substantial way an economy the size of the US.

Not true; in fact, it is estimated by some economists that the amount of black market activity (as in, money not reported to the government) is roughly equal to the US's GDP.

In other words, THAT'S A LOT.