It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Proof a Living Wage is Possible

page: 1
14
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 11:27 AM
I am going to prove using basic mathematics that a wage cap of \$20 Million annually will leave enough GDP for a Living Wage without cutting wages of anyone making under \$20 Million.

Figures used to determine distribution of GDP

1. \$17,348,000,000,000 US GDP
2. 321,729,000 total population
3. 87,832,017 27.3% under 20
4. 59,630,000 married couples
5. 174,266,983 minimum number of Necessary wage earners including Social Security and Disability

Scenario 1 \$5 million wage cap

1. 235,413 Over \$1 million
Total wages \$1,177,065,000,000 (Est \$5M)

2. 1,742,669 Over \$250,000
Total Wages \$871,334,500,000 (Est \$500K)

3. 11,322,000 Over \$100,000
Total Wages \$2,264,400,000,000 (Est \$200K)

4. Total Wages for all classes over \$100K \$4,312,800,000,000

5. Remaining GDP \$13,035,200,000

6. Total under \$100K wage earners 160,967,000

7. Remaining GDP per wage earner under \$100K = \$80,980

Scenario 2 wage cap of \$10 million

1. Total GDP \$100K to \$10 Million assuming all millionaires make \$10 million. \$5,489,865,000

2. Remaining GDP \$11,858,865,000

3. Total under \$100K wage earners 160,967,000

4. Remaining GDP per wage earner under \$100K = \$73,668

Scenario 3 wage cap of \$20 million

1. Total GDP \$100K to \$20 Million assuming all millionaires make \$20 million. \$7,843,994,000

2. Remaining GDP \$9,504,006,000,000

3. Total under \$100K wage earners 160,967,000

4. Remaining GDP per wage earner under \$100K = \$59,043

Scenario 4 \$20 Million Cap & Living Wage of \$35,000

1. Available GDP for under \$100,000 wage earners \$9,504,006,000,000

2. Bottom 25% of wage earners at \$35,000
Total GDP \$1,408,461,250,000

3. Second 25% of wage earners at \$50,000
Total GDP \$2,012,087,500,000

4. Top 50% under \$100K wage earners average \$75,586
Total GDP \$6,083,457,250,000

How much is too much?

-If you make more than \$10,000, you earn more than 24.2% of Americans, or 37 million people.

-If you make more than \$15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans.

-If you make more than \$30,000, you earn more than 53.2% of Americans.

-If you make more than \$50,000, you earn more than 73.4% of Americans.

-If you make more than \$100,000, you earn more than 92.6% of Americans.

-You are officially in the top 1% of American wage earners if you earn more than \$250,000.

-The 894 people that earn more than \$20 million make more than 99.99989% of Americans, and are compensated a cumulative \$37,009,979,568 per year.
m.huffpost.com...

The math is simple.

Put a wage cap of \$20 Million Dollars on 894 people and we have enough GDP to ensure every household has at least 1 wage earner at \$35,000, including Social Security, Disability and the Unemployed, without cutting the wages of anyone under \$20 Million.

Personally I vote for the wage cap of \$5 Million with a much larger middle class making \$100,000 plus.

Sources Used for Calculations
en.m.wikipedia.org...(nominal)
en.m.wikipedia.org...
www.statista.com...

edit on 1-11-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 11:43 AM
Who are you to determine how much is too much?

And what happens when you set one wage cap, and the people decide it still isn't fair that some people can make up to \$20million, just like when the minimum wage is raised and then people decide the new wage floor isn't enough for them to live on?

The basic lesson is that centrally planned economies do not work.

Markets are simply too complex for the simplistic types of caps and floors governments seek to impose and there are always unintended secondary and tertiary effects that are then presented as new problems to the people. It's great for government because it gives them both more power and more reason to exist, but it's horrible for the rest of us because it means we ourselves have less actual sovereignty.

Just out of curiosity, how would your wage cap, for example, handle a one time lottery winner whose jackpot has a payout of more than \$20 million? For all practical intents and purposes, for that one time, those people are making that wage. Are you saying their winnings are more than they need even though they are only making them for that one time?

Similarly, there is a lot of both upward and downward mobility. A lot of people who make a large wage like that only do so for at most a handful of years, if that many, before they drop down below your magic cap. What if those people were planning on using that money to plan for savings for retirement, their kids' educational futures, starting small businesses of their own, etc.? You just take that money from them and it slows down the potential growth they could put that money to in favor of what? The government does not invest in new business, only its own endeavors.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:10 PM
This will never happen because those 894 people won't let it. They don't care that they have more money than they could ever spend, they just want more of it, it's kinda like a heroin addiction, too much is not enough.

As for deciding "how much is too much", let's just take a look at the economy today. Those 894 people have swiss bank accounts where they hoard their money, they are taking from the economy and not putting back into it, they're slowly taking money away from the middle and lower classes and have been for quite some time now.

Common sense tells you how much is too much.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:11 PM
If this was implemented,

Then all the people earning above the wage cap (Also, what do you propose happens to current fortunes?) would simply up and leave, and now that entire portion of your GDP calculations would be gone, Same goes with increase in tax, the rich are just going to find better ways to invest it, they are not going to pay more tax.

So when X politician says if we raise the top tax by 5% and we will earn X millions more, then they are lying or dont know economics, the wealthy will just find better ways of spending the 5%, its simple math, it will cost them less than 5% of their income to find out how to avoid the system.

+1 more
posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:13 PM

I love the "Who are you..." argument. Yes let's let the wealth gap grow unchecked because well, who is anyone to be upset about it. No one is important enough to dare complain, so just accept it and keep your mouth shut.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:18 PM
Using the law is a fruitless solution. The law is the enabler if not the root cause of the current income disparity.

But whether the Constitution really be one
thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either
authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless
to prevent it.
www.lewrockwell.com...

As the Constitution so goes the law.

The true underlying problem is economic.

Any proposed solution is at best a blind guess without an economic basis.

edit on 1-11-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:19 PM
I knew a guy that was 10 million and 6 years into opening a recycling center. Opening was still at least 2 years and 2 M dollars away. Who would make such an investment with a cap like yours.

No one wins a race to the bottom.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:21 PM

I think you misunderstand the sentiment behind "Who are you..." in this context,

If is from a Classical liberalism perspective, Individualism, as in, there is no force greater than the individual, therefore there should be no institution that can mandate that you do something against your will, like say, give over 20-50% of your earnings to the Federal Government with the threat of violence (So who are they to have the right to a monopoly on Violence and with the power to enforce majoritarian laws).

Whereas you are thinking of Neo Liberal rhetoric which likes to shame and guilt people with " Who are you to be saying X" as they feel that they have the " Right not to be offended", This is not what the poster was intending.

Also, Neo Liberalism is a mockery of what Classical Liberalism stood for,

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:26 PM

I know what they meant and their full of #. Individual rights should never be so great it allows for any individual to benefit so greatly at the cost of the many.

Then to argue that those suffering have no right to speak against the individual who considers their rights so great that they can do whatever they want no matter who suffers for it... disgusting.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:32 PM

He gave several different wage cap examples. The lottery winner loses a great deal of that to taxes. I don;t think cutting the wage of 894 people to 20 million would be too harsh, if it helped so many.

I am trying so hard to answer this in a serious manner, but your avatar has me cracking up...I can;t function this way lol

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:41 PM

If the cap on income is \$20 Million the cap on Lottery would be \$20 Million. More winners winning less.

Apparently you think we need to feel sorry for someone who has \$20 Million then goes broke.

If someone wins or earns \$20 Million in a single year then runs out of money I have no sympathy for them.

I don't agree with anything you posted but I do agree with the study below, and you can Google many such studies that all show empirical evidence that this study is accurate.

Economic Inequality Stifles Growth

A degree of inequality can act as a positive influence on economic growth in the short term. However, some economists find empirical evidence of a negative correlation of about 0.5-0.8 percentage points between long-term growth rates and sustained economic inequality.

A variety of explanations have been proposed to explain how inequality can work to stifle growth. A high level of economic inequality means a higher level of poverty. Poverty is associated with increased crime and poor public health, which places burdens on the economy. In the face of increasing food prices and lower incomes, support for pro-growth government policies declines.

Wealthy citizens maintain disproportionate political power compared to poorer citizens, which encourages the development of inefficient tax structures skewed in favor of the wealthy. Unequal income distribution increases political instability, which threatens property rights, increases the risk of state repudiated contracts, and discourages capital accumulation.

A widening rich-poor gap tends to increase the rate of rent-seeking and predatory market behaviors that hinder economic growth....

Economic Inequality Increases Crime

Studies establish a positive relationship between income inequality and crime. According to a survey of research conducted between 1968 and 2000, most researchers point to evidence economically unequal societies have higher crime rates. That survey concludes that inequality is “the single factor most closely and consistently related to crime....

Economic Inequality Increases Political Inequality

When wealth distribution becomes concentrated in a small number of hands, political power tends to become skewed in favor of that small wealthy group. High-income groups are able and incentivized to manipulate government in their favor through both legal processes and through corrupt practices. Impoverished or working class groups are simultaneously less able to become educated or participate in the political process as economic means become increasingly scarce....

Economic Inequality Decreases Education

Substantial empirical research reveal link education and poverty. Nations with a high degree of economic equality and a relatively small low-income population tend to have a substantially higher level of education. A one-point increase in the Gini coefficient (a measurement of income inequality) translates into a 10% decrease in high school graduation rates and a 40% increase in college graduation.

In an economically unequal society, the society-wide average level of education decreases while the number of educational elites increases.
sevenpillarsinstitute.org...

It's impossible to make money without a society. No one should be so wealthy that they can dictate the rules of society. The rules of society should favour the majority, not 894 people.

edit on 1-11-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:48 PM

The fallacy with your "math" is that you assume the economic pie is fixed. You also ignore that these high earners in all likelihood have created exponentially more wealth than the \$20 million that they are earning. The \$20 million in earnings could be because someone sold a business that they spent 20 years building. They may have lucked out an been an early employee at a company and decided to sell some of their shares for retirement. They may be athletes. They could be actors.

At the end of the day, why is it any business of yours what someone else makes? If you think you don't make enough, step up your game.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:51 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko
Who are you to determine how much is too much?

And what happens when you set one wage cap, and the people decide it still isn't fair that some people can make up to \$20million, just like when the minimum wage is raised and then people decide the new wage floor isn't enough for them to live on?

The basic lesson is that centrally planned economies do not work.

Markets are simply too complex for the simplistic types of caps and floors governments seek to impose and there are always unintended secondary and tertiary effects that are then presented as new problems to the people. It's great for government because it gives them both more power and more reason to exist, but it's horrible for the rest of us because it means we ourselves have less actual sovereignty.

Just out of curiosity, how would your wage cap, for example, handle a one time lottery winner whose jackpot has a payout of more than \$20 million? For all practical intents and purposes, for that one time, those people are making that wage. Are you saying their winnings are more than they need even though they are only making them for that one time?

Similarly, there is a lot of both upward and downward mobility. A lot of people who make a large wage like that only do so for at most a handful of years, if that many, before they drop down below your magic cap. What if those people were planning on using that money to plan for savings for retirement, their kids' educational futures, starting small businesses of their own, etc.? You just take that money from them and it slows down the potential growth they could put that money to in favor of what? The government does not invest in new business, only its own endeavors.

Who are these people to keep so much of the wealth their workers generate that their workers starve and can't get healthcare go in and out of homelessness....

All in the name of the ever elusive " MORE"!!!!!!!!

How much is enough?

That is simple, if you are a Walton and you have billions while most of your workers are in poverty..... You not only have enough, you have way too much.

Simple logic and a touch of common sense should easily explain that.

So what we just keep the current status quo, and let even more workers slip farther into poverty?

There is an obvious problem with our economy, 2/3 of workers don't even make enough to live, so they get subsidies.

Education won't help, there aren't enough good jobs.

The problem is the available jobs don't pay enough, 2/3 of them in fact.

Meaning, unless they pay more 2/3 of all American workers will remain in poverty.

Which is an obvious problem.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:55 PM

originally posted by: Isurrender73

If the cap on income is \$20 Million the cap on Lottery would be \$20 Million. More winners winning less.

Apparently you think we need to feel sorry for someone who has \$20 Million then goes broke.

If someone wins or earns \$20 Million in a single year then runs out of money I have no sympathy for them.

I don't agree with anything you posted but I do agree with the study below, and you can Google many such studies that all show empirical evidence that this study is accurate.

Economic Inequality Stifles Growth

A degree of inequality can act as a positive influence on economic growth in the short term. However, some economists find empirical evidence of a negative correlation of about 0.5-0.8 percentage points between long-term growth rates and sustained economic inequality.

A variety of explanations have been proposed to explain how inequality can work to stifle growth. A high level of economic inequality means a higher level of poverty. Poverty is associated with increased crime and poor public health, which places burdens on the economy. In the face of increasing food prices and lower incomes, support for pro-growth government policies declines.

Wealthy citizens maintain disproportionate political power compared to poorer citizens, which encourages the development of inefficient tax structures skewed in favor of the wealthy. Unequal income distribution increases political instability, which threatens property rights, increases the risk of state repudiated contracts, and discourages capital accumulation.

A widening rich-poor gap tends to increase the rate of rent-seeking and predatory market behaviors that hinder economic growth....

Economic Inequality Increases Crime

Studies establish a positive relationship between income inequality and crime. According to a survey of research conducted between 1968 and 2000, most researchers point to evidence economically unequal societies have higher crime rates. That survey concludes that inequality is “the single factor most closely and consistently related to crime....

Economic Inequality Increases Political Inequality

When wealth distribution becomes concentrated in a small number of hands, political power tends to become skewed in favor of that small wealthy group. High-income groups are able and incentivized to manipulate government in their favor through both legal processes and through corrupt practices. Impoverished or working class groups are simultaneously less able to become educated or participate in the political process as economic means become increasingly scarce....

Economic Inequality Decreases Education

Substantial empirical research reveal link education and poverty. Nations with a high degree of economic equality and a relatively small low-income population tend to have a substantially higher level of education. A one-point increase in the Gini coefficient (a measurement of income inequality) translates into a 10% decrease in high school graduation rates and a 40% increase in college graduation.

In an economically unequal society, the society-wide average level of education decreases while the number of educational elites increases.
sevenpillarsinstitute.org...

It's impossible to make money without a society. No one should be so wealthy that they can dictate the rules of society. The rules of society should favour the majority, not 894 people.

Inequality is a result and a symptom of an unfair economic system.

Money that keeps is value is equal to every one, all of the time.

Money that has value to the first holders and then loses value favors the first holders. That is the largest single cause of income disparity.

The second is the law. The law will favor the team who can buy the most lawyers.

Using more law is to solve a problem caused by law is not likely to work out long term. Short term is long enough to get elected. We have the result of all of the short term fixes that went before, hence the income disparity.

The third is political power. Political power works full time to increase its power. Regular people living their lives full time have no way to work on power full time. Therefore the power class gets its increments year after year.

Reducing political power to zero is the only way to live without constant efforts to control power.
edit on 1-11-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:00 PM

originally posted by: Edumakated

The fallacy with your "math" is that you assume the economic pie is fixed. You also ignore that these high earners in all likelihood have created exponentially more wealth than the \$20 million that they are earning. The \$20 million in earnings could be because someone sold a business that they spent 20 years building. They may have lucked out an been an early employee at a company and decided to sell some of their shares for retirement. They may be athletes. They could be actors.

At the end of the day, why is it any business of yours what someone else makes? If you think you don't make enough, step up your game.

This is complete BS.

These 894 people are mostly Bankers, Merchants and their CEOs.

Their products would still be available even if they stopped selling them. Supply and demand would ensure that someone would meet the demand of the consumer.

If the store doesn't say Wal Mart but is called Joes Superstore, the same goods will be available to the consumer.

If their is a demand you will always find a supplier and a merchant. This country was founded on the small business platform, with laws like the Sherman Act created to keep it that way.

This nation was financially the greatest on earth until globalization destroyed the Sherman Act. We used to be the land of opportunity, now we are the land of Elitism.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:04 PM

originally posted by: Puppylove

I love the "Who are you..." argument. Yes let's let the wealth gap grow unchecked because well, who is anyone to be upset about it. No one is important enough to dare complain, so just accept it and keep your mouth shut.

Yes, it is a "who are you ..."

The long and short of it is this ... This reflects a basic disrespect for the idea of person and property. If someone can earn the money in any way, and I listed several that don't rely on you being filthy rich to begin with in order to do it, then someone somewhere arbitrarily decides that it's illegitimate and you better not have it. Thus, your property is not yours no matter how you came by it.

Once you start to allow anyone to start ruling what property and how much property a person, any person, ought to be allowed, then we start down the road to eroded property rights. We're already quite far down it, and some people won't recognize just how far down until they go to buy something they would like to have and think they ought to have the right to have and are told someone else, in the government, has decided they ought not have it for one reason or another.

Plenty of people learned this lesson with their health insurance, but maybe some of you did not?

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:05 PM

originally posted by: WiseThinker
If this was implemented,

Then all the people earning above the wage cap (Also, what do you propose happens to current fortunes?) would simply up and leave, and now that entire portion of your GDP calculations would be gone, Same goes with increase in tax, the rich are just going to find better ways to invest it, they are not going to pay more tax.

So when X politician says if we raise the top tax by 5% and we will earn X millions more, then they are lying or dont know economics, the wealthy will just find better ways of spending the 5%, its simple math, it will cost them less than 5% of their income to find out how to avoid the system

Do you understand supply and demand?

If the merchants and bankers leave, new merchants and bankers will take their place. As long as the consumer has a demand someone will produce the goods and services to meet the demand.

edit on 1-11-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:05 PM

originally posted by: Edumakated

The fallacy with your "math" is that you assume the economic pie is fixed. You also ignore that these high earners in all likelihood have created exponentially more wealth than the \$20 million that they are earning. The \$20 million in earnings could be because someone sold a business that they spent 20 years building. They may have lucked out an been an early employee at a company and decided to sell some of their shares for retirement. They may be athletes. They could be actors.

At the end of the day, why is it any business of yours what someone else makes? If you think you don't make enough, step up your game.

Because you are arguing it from a personal gain/greed side.

He is arguing what will be best for society.

Those like you that argue the personal gain/ greed side always spout off the same lines that fully ignore the obvious problem.

" step up your game "

" get an education "

Less than 1/3 of the jobs pay above poverty wages, until 2/3 of jobs start paying better, 2/3 of the country will be in poverty.

You can't step up your game or get educated into jobs that don't exist.

If we all stepped it up to Bill Gates level, there will just be Bill Gates level people getting paid poverty wages at 2/3 of jobs.

Jobs don't exist so people with degrees can work there.

Just like Walmart doesn't exist to pay poverty wages.

Jobs must pay more or the problem won't end period, no matter how much stepping up or getting educated takes place.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:07 PM

There are extremes on both sides of this fence no regulation is just as bad as complete regulation, anyone arguing all or nothing is my opinion an idiot, no offense. Extremes are bad ok. Both ends of this spectrum are bad and extreme.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:07 PM

I am a voter in a Democratic Republic that thinks the majority of mankind is more important then the Elitists Entitlement attitude that appears to be strong on ATS.

Who are you?

Add - By the number of stars you have it appears that entitled elitism is the norm on ATS. Good thing for everyone that the majority of humanity disagrees.

Sometimes I feel like I am the only one who can see the end game of those who sit on top of the elitists pyramid.

I doubt those stars are coming from the only ones that win in the end, if the NWO continues as planned by the Elitists on top of today's pyramid. - Even though they loose in the end.

edit on 1-11-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

14