It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Enforce a Maximum Wage!

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me

lol, you should check my post history. Everyone should be quite thankful they aren't me.

Im not a socialist, really. That would imply I believe in, care about, or support some type of economical ideology.

I live in an ever waking nightmare surrounded by rtards & partisan politics, where humans are idolized by other humans because they have more money than the other humans.

Hercolubus Inbound. (I pray it is, anyways)
edit on 18-11-2014 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Currently 75 people have more wealth than 3.5 Billion people. When the system is so innately evil...

And my point all along, using simple math and logic, is that salary disparity has nothing to do with it.

Sorry you hate people doing better than you though, it's a tough place to be… constantly blaming others for your lack of success.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Id rather wait in suffering for the end. That's the Jesus thing to do, after all.

You probably vote too, dont you?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Blaming people for my lack of success? Yes, you're insight into my world is very keen based on a few forum posts.
You obviously can't even understand my point you're so caught up in your wonderful economic reality.


Money doesn't exist. Have fun trying to accumulate it. I'll twiddle my unsuccessful thumbs & pray for some sort of cataclysm.
There's plenty on the horizon.
edit on 18-11-2014 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: JIMC5499

Id rather wait in suffering for the end. That's the Jesus thing to do, after all.

You probably vote too, dont you?


Won't take your own advice. Thought so. Yes I vote. Hell, I'm even a veteran.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

My best friend served in Iraq & proudly doesn't vote.

It's sad you draw parallels between the two.

It's even more sad you think voting exists.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

"Money" is a proxy. It exists. Completely. I have numbers on a ledger to prove it. And with that money I can lure people to build things and create.

But "money" is still just a proxy. It is wealth. You convert the value of all your cows to a number, which is recorded on a ledger as an asset. If you liquidate that asset, you are given money. The proxy for wealth.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Eunuchorn

So let's say the CEO of Ford is contractually due a massive $100 million bonus. But instead, the company is forced to give that to the 224,000 employees… amounting to about $280 annually after taxes… or $5.38 a week.

You're implying that will make some kind of difference?


is it not by the 'faithful' sweat of the employee that the ceo even has a desk to sit at? a pencil to push?
that $5.38 a week should be a symbol of appreciation; "thanks for my pedistal".



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Bit of oversimplified example (a lot of those 224k employees will be on high wages already why spread it amongst them) but even going with that yes 5.38 a week would make a difference to a low paid employee. Also as lower paid spend a higher proportion of their income it would also be good for the economy.



Credibility lost... $5.38 a week makes a difference? That would be 13.45 cents per hour wage increase, or $279.76 a year. As an aside, who is the "low paid employee" at FOMOCO?

"Lower paid" workers spend a higher proportion of their income? In fact, they spend all of it! Hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck ring a bell? It is the goal of most people to spend a smaller percentage of their income, allowing for savings and investment, true drivers of the economy.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: JIMC5499

It's even more sad you think voting exists.


That's a weird statement coming from somebody who wants Government to cap salaries.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: JIMC5499

It's even more sad you think voting exists.


That's a weird statement coming from somebody who wants Government to cap salaries.



I thought this entire thread was just an excercise in ironic theory?
Like the 1% would ever allow a maximum wage cap of any kind, LoL.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I concede, proxies do exist.

Numbers on a computer screen don't. G20 just made d/mn sure of that.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me
Do realise your two points contradict each other? 5.38a week won't make a difference to someone living paycheck to paycheck?
Also the ford example was just that an example(picked by skepticaloverlord) I have no idea of the lowest salaries in ford, you can insert any major corporation of your choice.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mirthful Me

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Bit of oversimplified example (a lot of those 224k employees will be on high wages already why spread it amongst them) but even going with that yes 5.38 a week would make a difference to a low paid employee. Also as lower paid spend a higher proportion of their income it would also be good for the economy.



Credibility lost... $5.38 a week makes a difference? That would be 13.45 cents per hour wage increase, or $279.76 a year. As an aside, who is the "low paid employee" at FOMOCO?

"Lower paid" workers spend a higher proportion of their income? In fact, they spend all of it! Hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck ring a bell? It is the goal of most people to spend a smaller percentage of their income, allowing for savings and investment, true drivers of the economy.


The "higher paid" workers couldn't spend their wealth of they wanted to.

Estimated 10-year cost TO TAXPAYERS to maintain US Prison Industrial Complex: $4 Billion
Estimated 10-year cost TO END WORLD HUNGER: $3 Billion

I hope our world burns & soon.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me
Forgot to add savings and investment are pointless without demand. Do you want me to recommend a good introduction to economics book for you?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Mirthful Me
Do realise your two points contradict each other? 5.38a week won't make a difference to someone living paycheck to paycheck?


I suggest you reread my statements. $5.38 a week won't make a difference, therefore taking something away from someone else (the CEO) out of spite and jealousy does nothing to truly change anyone's life. My comment regarding paycheck to paycheck illustrated your mistaken assertion that "lower paid workers" would pay a "higher proportion" of their wages after getting the additional money.



Also the ford example was just that an example(picked by skepticaloverlord) I have no idea of the lowest salaries in ford, you can insert any major corporation of your choice.


So you have no idea what kind of wages corporations are paying? So they could in fact, be paying quite well? Perhaps your ignorance is driving this misguided exercise?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Id say unabashed & disgusting wage disparity is driving this excercise.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me
Nope have read your post again and it I still contradictory. If someone really has no spare income then even a small increase can make a difference.
The point about redistribution has nothing to do with spite or jealousy and everything to do with frustration at the economic and social madness of the ratios of income between highest and lowest paid workers.
I am not advocating taking away anything from anyone it was an example of wage differences picked by someone else. Do I need to explain what an example is? I think the basic economics book I had in mind might be a bit advanced. Maybe a primer in social studies first.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: JesseVentura
Did you know that in the last three decades, a CEOs salary has grown 875% versus that of the average worker


Did you know that a "CEO" is among the most volatile job positions, with near-constant scrutiny, in all of industry?

Did you know that we're currently in a free market economy where the board of directors of companies can opt to pay a high salary to a CEO, who might be in high demand, in order to acquire the typically very rare skill set of that CEO? If the market (companies) is willing to pay the cost (salary & perks) for a valuable commodity (experience) why is that wrong?


Was the cost of Steve Jobs worth it for Apple? I would presume the stock holders would say yes.

Is the cost of Mark Fields worth it for Ford? I think the stock holders would say yes.


Here's a real-world example. Back in the late 1990's, my team won the advertising business for a large company working hard at a turn-around… because they were months away from complete failure. The board fired the entire executive staff (they deserved it), and rebuilt it, beginning with a high-profile CEO. He was very expensive, not just because of the experience and connections he brought to the company, but because of the risk involved in trying to turn around a failing former giant. But because of him at the company's head, they were able to attract other exceptionally experienced executives to the team… he was someone other similarly experienced people wanted to work for. They were also expensive.

But it worked.

After two years, there was a phenomenal turn-around, and eventually a return to the stock's former price. Hundreds-of-thousands of stock holders and pension funds holding the company's stock went from fearing it was worthless, to the former glory of the stock price… not to mention everyone working there still had their jobs. All because the company took a huge risk on insane salaries for the CEO and the executive team.


Free market. It's a good thing.



Edit to add…

Forgot another tidbit about the company mentioned above. A few years later, after I left advertising, the company was acquired for more than their market cap, by a much bigger company, giving stock holders a huge payday. No one was laid off as there was no overlap with the acquiring company. Part of the reason for the acquisition was… you guessed it… the quality of the executive team.


To say that free markets are a good thing is to claim that capitalism and markets are heading in the right direction in terms of quality of life and fair distribution of vital resources. To say THAT is a clear admission of blind ignorance.

Glad things are working out so well for you and I suppose you will claim that ANYONE could benefit from free market capitalism, and that is true but you would be a liar to state that EVERYONE could benefit from free market capitalism.

There are many people out there that would do a CEO's job better for much less and to waste as much as big corporations do on executives may hype up shareholders but it really does nothing for consumers that want quality products at reasonable prices. A CEO with THAT vision would be lambasted by investors who want to make products the cheapest and sell them for the most. Somehow those people are hero and all they did was rip off consumers who worked hard for their money. But hey! Share prices are up so the CEO must be good. Jobs was a communist with a snip product that was well marketed by psychopathic jerks who took advantage of consumers.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

This smacks of "let them eat cake". Yes, $5.38 is better than 0. BUt lets talk realistic and germane....$5.38 has zero impact. If we need to break down the percentage of income to help you understand how it isn't germane, we can.




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join