Enforce a Maximum Wage!

originally posted by: TDawgRex
Is ATS now backing Alex Jones through Off the Grid? Seriously?

Absolutely not. But sorry it's coming across that way.

We broke down Alex Jones' ridiculousness here: Next Level BS #20: Alex Jones Gets It Wrong on Net Neutrality

I honestly can't understand how any thinking person could take him seriously any more.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
The fact is though, the rich are getting richer, and income inequality in our country is growing.

It's not just growing, it's an exponential skyrocket to levels never seen since before the great depression.

But the solution isn't the ridiculousness of capping executive salaries… that's so small a portion of the perceived problem as to be insignificant.

The problem is the rigged high-finance sector. I could go one for pages and pages about this. But we (americans) allowed the bought and paid-for indentured servants (politicians) to do the bidding of their corporate lords and turn our equity (homes) into a traded commodity. Once that happened, there was a rush to create more of that commodity in the form of mortgage-backed securities, and a rush to get as many mortgages as possible -- even very-high risk mortgages through fraud and deception. And while the market crashed, the rich knew which way to cast their bets while the rest of us didn't. That's what caused the wealth disparity, or at least one big-fat example -- the middle class lost billions and the elite scooped it up.

No. It's not executive salaries. It's the rigging of the equities (and related financial vehicles) markets that enabled the disparity.

a reply to: Springer

Springer, I don't think for a minute Jessie is suggesting communistic views. I believe he is proposing a system where the ultra fat cats do not live in a life of luxury whilst the average person has to work his butt off just to make ends meet. Most ATS members are predominantly US, so I understand this point of view (current). BUT I'm astounded that most members here have no idea how life outside the US continues. You (USA) are spoiled in many ways, and it confounds us worldly people.

Basic Economics? I 'm well aware of this, as a professional with a business degree.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That's basically what I said in Page 1 When I said Oil and Bank (finance) industries. I also don't have the time to get into the banking industry. They screwed the entire planet.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
a reply to: Mirthful Me

I don't have an exact number to give you for what Floyd Mayweather should make, but I do think it should be one way or the other- either have salary caps across the board or don't have them at all. The fact is though, the rich are getting richer, and income inequality in our country is growing. I've brought up the idea of a maximum wage as a possible solution to save the middle class, but it's not the only solution. What do you suggest?

Leave wages alone, cap credit (unmanageable debt is the Devil) and incentivize investment for the middle class... And most importantly, dispense with the notion that anything in life, including wages/income/wealth should be "fair."

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You're right, and I agree, executive salaries didn't cause the problem. I proposed one solution, directly related to income, and based off the professional sports industry's model, but it certainly isn't the only one. More importantly though, income inequality is an issue that I want people to discuss and propose solutions to solve. What would you suggest?

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Interesting suggestions. How would you suggest to curb student debt though? With costs to attend colleges and universities skyrocketing, education beyond high school is a financial burden for most.

I don't have much knowledge on this subject but I have been thinking about this for a while now. I see a big problems when a company gives their CEO's huge raises while the actual workers that do more for the profitability of a company gets pennies. Let's say that Company A manufactured 25% more units than last year it's not right for the CEO to get a million dollar raise or bonus while the employees only get a .25 cents raise especially when all of the employee's raises and bonuses combined only equal a very small fraction of the bosses raise/bonus. If they are that deserving of that large a sum then let's see how good that company does when every employee leaves, leaving only the bosses to do the work. The problem I see is that the CEO's and shift managers are rewarded when a company does better not the actual employees that have more to do with that company doing better.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Mirthful Me

The Swedish don't seem very miserable.

Aaaah... The inevitable leftist strawman... Sweden... With it's population of less than 10 million total, and a homogeneous population... Surely that can be extrapolated into a "People's Bliss" for billions?

No chance of billionaires in the worker's paradise that is Sweden? Of course not...

Let the socialist-liberal experiment continue in Sweden, and it will just be another Detroit with a hockey team that isn't quite as good...

The problem is greed people. Let's think of a wat to structure our culture to have beneficial social incentives that encourage people to want to help others.

I know it's a fairy tale but so what? The least we can do is move in that direction.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Interesting suggestions. How would you suggest to curb student debt though? With costs to attend colleges and universities skyrocketing, education beyond high school is a financial burden for most.

Easiest question of the night... Get the federal government out of education, especially student loans... The same "free money" mentality that gave us $400 hammers and $1,000 toilet seats in the Department of Defense has allowed Universities to raise tuition to a point where the resulting degree has no return on equity...

Is college worth it?

a reply to: Mirthful Me

It amazes me that people need to mention how small the Scandanavian countries are - as if proportion and scale don't exist. But aside from that, linking to a page that shows Sweden has a handful of billionaires and an immigration problem - via an article that says:

The newest Swedes have settled in suburbs that sound like names from the Ikea catalogue: Tensta, Rinkeby, Husby. These suburbs are not slums. They have expansive parks and recreation centres and free Swedish-language classes. The schools get extra subsidies. Welfare benefits are generous. But these neighbourhoods have become welfare traps. The schools are almost entirely segregated. Graduation rates are low (three-quarters of Somali kids drop out of school, according to the Economist) and unemployment rates are high. Central Stockholm is a short ride away by public transit, but it might as well be on Mars.

The newcomers are vastly better off than they were back home. But their kids don’t care about back home. Here, most of them are stuck at the bottom of the social heap. Some of them are angry, and take it out on society. They stone their own fire fighters and burn their own schools. The authorities are not inclined to be too harsh. “Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm’s police chief told the Swedish newspaper Expressen, during the recent riots.

As riots go, these were rather small. A few dozen cars were burned. Nobody was shot. Still, they are a sign that something has gone very wrong in Sweden. Yet frank discussions of the country’s immigration problems are virtually taboo. Anyone who brings them up is likely to be labelled as a xenophobic racist. When the immigration minister, Tobias Billström, mildly suggested that “we need to discuss the volume” of immigration, his own party nearly disowned him.

It does nothing to discount the fact that Sweden beats the US in every single quality of life index available - as do most other Scandinavian nations.

There is a rational reason for this. They avoid absolutist thinking and the type of Social Darwinism that oligarchists and meritocratists promote - even though they tend to disavow that particular label.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Our priorities as a society are all messed up.

I think the ills of society are not created because the CEO is making a billion percent more than the entry worker.

I would be Ok with a CEO of a company that made 1 Trillion dollars for every one dollar an employee makes if the company cured cancer.

I think what is more important than the wages or ratio of CEO pay to employee is the methods of how compensation is met in certain sectors.

As solely an example healthcare methods of compensation might not necessarily be in the best interest of the general public.

A company could likely make more money in treating symptoms than curing diseases, especially with the cost of R&D that they have to rightfully get back. Its like the CLOUD Computing business model where they want you to pay for eternity.

In essence we need to LOOK at and put think tanks together to look at better ways to compensate both the producer and the consumer to better humankind.

IMAGINE how the world might be if the Military Industrial Complex including its private contractors like the Lockheed martins, Raytheon,BEA System of the world got COMPENSATED based on world peace ,freedom and stability indexes.

I would rather look into these methods to ensure ingenuity,desire and innovation still exist, but also benefits both the producer , the recipients and HUMANKIND on a more equal balance.

However, to do that we need a less corrupt gov't so it will not happen, then again for the same reason neither will the maximum wage. The lobbyist clients are on the winning end of compensation and they create the laws that our congress sign.

So I might be for restricting compensation ratio between producer and consumers in certain industries than placing any minimum or maximum caps.

Sadly I know that is only but a dream, but IMAGINE if companies compensation in certain industries was based on its output for humanity.

A maximum wage sounds like a good idea in theory, I mean why should the CEO of say a toilet paper company or a software company make more than a doctor who saves lives.
It makes more sense to base wages on how much good a particular job can contribute to a majority of the people.
Jobs that provide the basic necessities to survive should pay the most because without those jobs and the products and services that those jobs produce none of us would be here for long.
Jobs that produce no real tangible products should pay the least because those jobs usually only provide the greatest benefits to a small number of people and little real benefit to the majority.some of the jobs that I have in mind in that category are jobs like lawyers, stockbrokers,advertisers, real estate sales.

Jobs that directly contribute to us surviving and advancing as a species should always pay the most.The CEO of a toilet paper company should be paid very little because having 2 ply cottony soft paper to wipe our butts with contributes nothing to our survival or advancement.

I believe our advancement as a species has been grossly retarded because we place too much value on people who can entertain us and having cottony soft butt wiping paper, our priorities are screwed up.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Honestly, we could finance every government on earth if Wallstreet simply had a fee per thousand share transaction, even a very small one. I forget the economist, but someone built up a revenue neutral scheme where all of our taxes were paid in minuscule transaction fees. The average poor person would pay almost nothing, the average corporation would pay more, but on a transaction by transaction basis would also be paying almost nothing.

originally posted by: Tardacus
It makes more sense to base wages on how much good a particular job can contribute to a majority of the people.
Jobs that provide the basic necessities to survive should pay the most because without those jobs and the products and services that those jobs produce none of us would be here for long.

I can see your point, but I'm not paying my garbage collectors the same rate that I'd pay a doctor. There has to be a level of value placed on scarcity.

originally posted by: LoneGunMan
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The stock holders got a huge payday? What about the average employees that are the backbone of the company? Did they get a piece of the action? Whatever happened to compesaring the hard working Joe who used to be the middle class?

In a society that supports a framework of rewarding participation or effort, you may be right. But if you are rewarding results....the reward goes to the individuals who make you the most money.

Its just plain old common sense. If you would like to reward participation, or give an "E" for effort, then a system needs to be devised whereby that becomes a workable scenario.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Green star for you...

Imagine for a second that you invent the latest and greatest widget. It is a top seller and everyone needs one and will pay ridiculous prices to get one.

However to keep your company current you need to pay very high salaries. (Think that you may have located in San Francisco ) and you have to compete with Google.

It all goes right for you and your widget even with your high overhead.

Why should you not be able to pay yourself a high salary?

then the true producers can go elsewhere and get stuff done.

that's the thing about work...some just are there to collect a check and benefits.

a few are there to build things of value.

your maximum wage world will be 100% check collectors.

they will eventually abandon that plan to be closer to the people that build things.

doomed from conception that place is.