It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Controlled Capitalism - A maximum wage

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 10:47 AM
reply to xuenchen

Of course its finite, this isn't the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe where the printing presses run unchecked.

And debt systems work perfectly fine in finite money systems, especially with such a huge pool of cash.

You owe money, so you earn that money from someone else in the system to pay the debt. The cash just flows around.

I like saying rich people are hoarding cash because people freak out on these boards as they have just demonstrated.

Poor people hoard cash because they are desperate because their personal earnings rate is very low. Rich people hoard cash because they are insecure in some way. Stashing away more cash than you could ever hope to use on a normal basis is hoarding. And when there are large personal reserves going unused, it removes money from the system that could be used for something else. Its an interesting thing to see people get sooo angry about it. Thats some good conditioning right there.

How do you suffocate a man? Remove the air.
How do you make a man thirsty? Remove the water.
How do you starve a man? Take away his food.

How do you make men poor? You take away the available money in the system they could earn. You could say jobs, but what do you need to create jobs... thats right money, and if its not there, then there are no jobs. Period. The government can create money and issue it, but once its in the system its up for grabs, and if the fat cats suck up a good portion of it, then the remaining cash on the table is fought over by everyone left. Taxes are supposed to be used to claw back this money and redistribute it. But they hurt the people with the least money and do little to the fat cats that bent the rules and grabbed a large portion of cash to remain immune from said taxes. If you limit what people can keep, you'll equalize what everyone has access to. Notice I said access because some people work harder than others and some people are very stupid with money.

Look at all those rich people who don't work and live off the wealth one person, like parasites. They contribute nothing other than helping him spend his money, which is great, but at the same time they think they can tell you what to do because they have the money and you don't. They have the attention of the politicians, not you, and you know how that all falls out. But if you limited the savings of that one wealthy guy where they get their fun money from, guess what, he cuts them off and they disappear. Now you don't have to deal with rich aristocrats running amuck. Affluenza cured or at least kept in check.

Now as far a maximum wage, you still have to deal with money being socked away and not being spent. A maximum wage would slow the savings rate but you would still have to cap the savings at some point.

edit on 4-7-2015 by CAPT PROTON because: ...

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:12 PM
You know, the Democrats tried maximum wage, and do you know what came about as a result? Health care as a benefit. So the current system where employees expect health insurance as part of their employment was a direct result of wage controls. Basically, businesses looked for and found other ways to offer their best employees compensation to keep them.

That created the system we have today that is now considered a national crisis and "unfair."

So basically, government created its own problem by meddling with something to try to solve another perceived problem.

If you try it again, what new problem will you create the our children or grandchildren will then be suffering for?

Remember, nothing happens in a vacuum action creates reaction and unintended consequences. It's not like you will institute wage controls and everyone will carry on exactly as they were only with your new law in place. People thought things would happen like that with Obamacare and they didn't. Now we are a nation of part-time employees as a result.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:11 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko
You know, the Democrats tried maximum wage, and do you know what came about as a result?

No society has ever implemented a maximum wage, nor a monetary cap on wealth. Even communism made a handful of the elite wealthy.

You can't compare ACA with a cap on wealth, the ACA doesn't do anything to effect those making the most money, except potentially increase their wealth.

edit on 4-7-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:23 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

Maybe you need to check history.

During WWII, the labor shortage caused a sharp spike in wages. Roosevelt instituted a series of wage and price controls, including a wage freeze. A wage freeze is a cap on real wages that an employer could pay a worker. In order to lure in labor, employers would add in perks, like health care, to make working for them more attractive. This is the birth of the modern health care as a benefit system we have in the US.

And since, I was right and you apparently aren't aware of that aspect of our economic history.

I brought up Obamacare of a real world, under our noses example of another, across-the-board sweeping change in our system that introduced more real-world, unintended consequences - many employers took full-time jobs and converted them to two or more part-time ones.

However, this is the train of events: wages spiked, wage freeze instituted (sweeping change), insurance offered as a benefit perk to get around wage freeze, now health insurance is part of the employer/employee relationship (unintended consequence of wage freeze), someone decided this is unfair to those without employer insurance, Obamacare is passed to "fix" the crisis the wage freeze created (irony as wage freeze was initial government tampering), Obamacare creates a nation of part-time jobs.

So the idea that two are unrelated is crap as you can see. Government likes to create its own problems.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:49 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

A temporary wage freeze did nothing to curb shareholder profits. And from your own link, it looks like Roosevelts programs provided the short term help the economy needed, even though they created other various problems.

The problems with FDRs programs could have been fixed by updating the systems rules. We are still using 50 year old programs that keep getting new stuff slapped on. It's time to rewrite the system, it is way to convoluted.

A wage cap would only negatively impact the top 1%. We don't need to be afraid to be a society of cooperative citizens who realize that greed needs to be controlled.
edit on 4-7-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:28 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't see what putting a max wage up would change.
It would just mean that more money would go to the corporations instead of to the people that held important positions in the corporations. And people would figure out ways to get different benefits that would circumnavigate the maximum wage laws. Or, they would move overseas.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:58 PM
I suppose I'm entering my old timer stage of ATS. I've been a member for years, commented on very little, and posted even less. But this has been the first subject in years to truly captivate my attention. The wealthy are far to unregulated. In my decade of employment...I started making 5.25 an hour. I literally make 4 times that amount these days. I'm in construction, which naturally has unreliable hours. I barely make enough at 21 an hour to get by. If the government were to max out the earning potential, the corporation would have no choice but to redistribute the wealth among the employees, the shareholders, the corporations earning potential, we'd all make out like bandits. But the rich of this world aren't interested in the benefits of our employment, just the money. I'm almost 26. I've managed to live off of less than 15 grand a year since I've been working the last decade. With luck and help. And I've been told that the ultra rich are scared to live with less than half a million a year? Without greed, a human should theoretically be required to pay less than a grand a year to live easy. They made it this way. We can change it.

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:55 AM
a reply to: cheddartoes

I'm going to preface my question to you with a very succinct backstory. I have a bachelors of science and a double minor in two other sciences. I am the same age as you.I make significantly less than you.

Let's say maximum wage actually happens in the near future. Would you accept taking a significant pay cut if they capped your wage because of the industry you work in,education, experience, etc...?

edit on 5-7-2015 by avgguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:29 AM

originally posted by: bobstark
A few hundred American capitalists are worth 3 trillion.
Corporations are making record profits. Profits are higher than ever before. The CEO's are making more than ever before. The rich capitalists have more assets and money than ever before.

Eighty percent (80%) of all American workers are living near poverty. 80% don't make enough money to pay the rent or buy groceries without welfare. You think it's the governments fault that corporations are richer than ever before, and they pay workers poverty wages? It is the fault of government regulations, or is it time to say capitalism has failed the majority of Americans. Workers that work full time should be able to afford food without welfare. What's wrong with a ceo making 300 times what a worker makes. Paying a worker so little that they would starve to death without food stamps means that capitalism isn't working.

Just stop with the stupidity please.

Yes. Please. Stop with the stupidity. Both of your 80% figures above are pure bull. Stop making crap up.

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:33 AM

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: stolencar18

What mcdonalds anywhere pays its non management employees 25k a year? It's more like 9-11k. Poverty line is set around 13k. How is 25k a bad salary again? The work my guys do is pretty simple and on their own schedule. None of them work other jobs, so apparently it's not all that bad.

My restaurant management job? Yea I know I'm way underpaid, but I enjoy the job and they are very flexible so I take the 38k with bonus no problem.

What Mcdonalds pays 25k+ to management? Virtually ALL of them in North America. I won't speak for the rest of the world as I don't have this knowledge first hand.

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:09 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

We must be from a different planet.

Never has there been more regulation, in general, than now. Never has so few owned so much.

The barriers to starting and succeeding in a new business has never been more difficult. The big Corporations have gained this by buying votes and implementing regulations that favor their operations.

The list of major Corporations that have and are squeezing the little guy out is long and distinguished.

This is done by regulations and laws.

While regulation is needed, it's the big guys who aren't getting that regulating. Just the little guys. End result? Mega-Corporations, buy-outs, mergers ever more power to influence even more.

Sigh, perhaps we should be saying free enterprise as opposed to capitalism. Capitalism isn't going away. Free enterprise is the one dying.....

edit on 5-7-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:56 PM
Okay so correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument I'm seeing is that we should give government more power, because the wealthy are taking control of the government and its powers. Does nobody see the problem with this?

If you don't want private entities commandeering the government why don't you take away the government's power to do things like create virtual monopolies and manipulate markets? If a corporation has nothing to gain by buying a politician, then he won't do it.
edit on ppm731293204 by Pants3204 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:59 PM

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Why we need a maximum wage.

Before trickle down economics starting trickling down B.S. on the heads of the American worker, America was the most efficient machine the world had ever seen.

When I was 16 fast food companies were begging kids to work in my city through ROP programs. There were plenty of low income jobs and room for advancement.

Then a wonderful man but horrible president, Ronald Regan, convinced a nation to give more money to the wealthy with the promise of prosperity for the Middle class.

What was once a thriving market of small businesses completing for your dollars, became a few oil companies and a handful of bankers owning nearly 50% of the world.

What was once a thriving supply and demand marketplace has become a controlled supply, maximum profit machine. The corporations controll the supply of basic commodities to maximize profit without any concern for those who do without.

This is the problem with uncontrolled capitalism. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or makes, his corporation always has to make more money this year than it did last year.

For an established business there are only a limited number of ways to make more money.

The easiest and most effective ways to grow profits are to raise prices or cut labor. If a man has no limit set on how much he can make, he will continue to feel the need to increase profits indefinitely.

The world doesn't need billionaires with enough money to buy governments. This is absurd.

We need to return to the controlled capitalist system we had in place before Regan. And make the following changes; implement a maximum wage, eliminate the FED, eliminate all private banking, eliminate the IRS and move to a flat tax.

The wealthy didn't care about us in the 80's and they still don't give a crap about the people.

If we had a maximum wage and maximum amount of monetary wealth this could never happen.

We don't need billionaires!

FDR already did that. It didn't work and was the seed for the current healthcare issues today.

Nevermind. It looks like ketsuko has already educated you on something you didn't know at the outset of the thread.
edit on 5-7-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:51 AM
a reply to: stolencar18

You saw the part where I said NON management right? Ok so ONE person in a McDonald's makes over 25k a year.

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:27 AM
a reply to: Isurrender73

The easiest and most effective ways to grow profits are to raise prices or cut labor. If a man has no limit set on how much he can make, he will continue to feel the need to increase profits indefinitely.

You do realize the glaring contradiction here, right?

..eliminate all private banking,...

Now that's a scary thought. Why would you want to do that?

We don't need billionaires!

Tell me, who benefited more;
From windows? Bill gates or the rest of the world?
From Facebook? Mark zuckerberg or the rest of the world?
From Walmart? the Waltons or the rest of the world?
From Berkshire Hathaway? Warren buffet or the rest of the world?
From Google? Larry page or the rest of the world?
From Apple? Steve Jobs or the rest of the world?

Now obviously these individuals are insanely wealthy, they are all in the top 10 earners in America. Yet, somehow they were on the losing side of the coin. Their contributions far outweigh their compensation.

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:55 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

It won't work, there are myriad ways to compensate people off the books.

If you're upset about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, start a business and see what you're up against. Taxes and regulations ensure that the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. But TPTB will always frame things in terms of the government needing more money to compensate for the wealth gap. Oldest trick in the book, and it even works on above-average intelligence people like those at ATS. Sneaky sneaky ..

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
a reply to: Dfairlite

Well said, but these arguments fall on deaf ears for one simple reason. Humans are jealous creatures. No matter how much someone deserves compensation, people will attempt to steal what they earned. It is human nature. You can see this bleeding through posts at ATS. Hatred of the rich.

Commerce is freedom. Commerce will pull any country out of an economic quagmire. What we see in the US is not capitalism. It is not unbridled commerce. No, it is commerce regulated and taxed to the hilt unless you're already a megacorporation with lobbyists.

And this is why we see such a bizarre rift in politics. Democrats want to punish the rich with more taxes and regulations. Republicans want to make it easier for the megacorporations to do what they do. They're both wrong, and that's why nothing will get better unless people educate themselves by starting a business and seeing how tough it is to compete under the yoke of taxes and regulations. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:22 PM
"Oh, but if you dont let rich people make an obscene amount of money they wont get out of bed..."

GOOD!!! Maybe the narcissists SHOULD stay at home. Take a 10 year holiday you f**king psychos. Let the mature human's who aint bothered by wealth and power fix the economic system.

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:11 PM
Did't even resd the OP, no disrespect, but in my opinion, wages DO NOT need to be raised...

It's the corrupt property taxes that are keeping the economy unstainable.....

Not the wages ~!

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 08:25 PM

Why we need a maximum wage.

Yeah if you want millions out of work.

Goods more EXPENSIVE.

And MORE jobs shipping to China, Canada, and Mexico.

But hey who cares.

I guess people just haven't noticed that right now people are paying MORE for labor.

Than the actual goods, or services cost.

edit on 6-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in