Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should there be a MAXIMUM wage?

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I think companies should have to pay fair wages to workers before paying dividends and buying back their own stock. It is the stocks that are being manipulated. Companies pay people who do nothing other than buy a stock rather than the employee's who do the work. System is rigged so wealthy people can play poker with stock market and make money for nothing. That has to stop before we go as far as maximum wage.




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
In a word, "No." You question betrays your mindset. All you can think of to make money is work for a wage. There's another way to make money. Earn it from having a good idea and convincing other people they might like to try it out. Example: If Steve Jobs had been told he could make only so much money as a "maximun," do you think he would have worked insane hours and bothered the create what he did? Of course not.

When you have an all-wage society you develop an attitude. That attitude is, "I'll pretend to work and you pretend to pay me." That results in long lines to buy a loaf of bread because no one really cares whether they make bread or not. They still get the same wage. They demand a $20 hr minimum age for doing nothijng. They demand free college so they can get high in class. It's absurd.

Good example is Germany. Same people, same background, same intelligence. Put half of them under communist/Marxist rule and let the others do Capitalism. Come back in thirty years and what happened? east Germany is stagnant. West Germany is prosperous. You think that is an accident? No, it's the free market at work.

Here's another clue. The only way you can implement your worker's paradise is to kill about 20 million people--per country (USSR, China, Cambodia and on down.) Want to get rid of Capitalism? All you have to do is kill 8 million Jews again, just because they were successful, and good bankers. Remind you of anything? All the Wall Street "occupation" has done is leave some crap on police cars and a mound of trash on the sidewalks. You think this is what it means to be enlightened.

It's disgusting. Sure, go ahead and throw some rocks. I've got 20,000 rounds. Bring it on.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
There are better ideas and I am speaking from the left.
I KNOW many RIGHT leaning friends who will call this idea UNCONSTITUTIONAL but for different reasons than I.

I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH DAMN LAWS

Being a Liberal I have to say you should not cap the money anyone can possibly make. In principal and in fact I don't think it is a good idea. Sounds a little too socialist, even to me.

Laws should be used only to protect the public....Not to protect the public from outrage.


An objective analysis of our current situation is that we have criminals in charge of companies and the government, who are theoretically answerable to someone, but in reality usually answer to no-one.

In addition to outlawing ALL corporate lobbying, outlawing outsourcing, and instituting real PERSONAL legal responsibility over things like corporations destroying the oceans (i.e. BP... like every BP CEO getting actual prison time), I also submit the following change to our corporate system:

CEOs, rather than the current system where they make untold millions while their workers live in poverty and/or they run their company into the ground, will instead make the following:

Standard "maximum wage" (TBD) + percentage of company profits.

If they want to make millions, they can! They just have to do their job! What is good for the company, investors and workers will then be directly good for the CEO.

Not a complete plan, but a good first step.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
S & F for you.
In theory it should work where everyone earns EXACTLY the same wage, i mean really who
NEEDS to earn more than 500k per year?? Honestly, these salaries are a joke. If the average
Joe Blow can live ok on, say 50k per year, why can't everyone?? All it boils down to is the individuals
EGO, and thinking "I MUST have (item) because so and so has it", or other lame excuses.
My partner and i, with 3 kids manage to get by on 60k between us per year, and we don't want
more than we have.
In a perfect world we would all be on 100k per year regardless of position, from top-line exec's thru
to toilet cleaners.. but this world ain't perfect.
IMO we should be paid by service to the community. Cop's, Ambo's, Firie's etc should be geetting more for what they do than top execs anyway. Did Steve Jobs put his life on the line everyday?, or Bill Gates?, or Richard Branson?

Sorry, i could go on all day with this topic, but i won't...

Rant Over...

Cheers Guys



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


Kill off a third of the population and im sure that'd be possible.
Hnestly I dont think you understand the gravity of your plight.
The reason these peoeple are filthy rich is because of trading.
There is really nothing wrong with that if you have a problem with it stop it but dont start thinking about turning a beautiful system into a communist society. please.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
this is just me but I think there should be some sort of fund created that "gives" say 5000$ to anyone who graduates highschool. everyone could make a living, there would be incentive to finish highschool.

something like that, I don't know how it would work, I just know that's the time in your life when having money dumped on you like that would be infinitely more helpful than if it weren't. people would have jobs and the things they need.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Personally, I think that publically owned companies should have a maximum cap to the top earners wage. So, if I own a company and make tons of cash, fine, no cap. But if I have stock where retirement funds are invested, add the cap. Let's say it's a ratio of 1:300. So if the lowliest employee makes 20K, then the top can ONLY make 6 million total a year. I think that would put the numbers into perspective.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I agree that laws should protect people, not necessarily limit wealth. The point I would agree with the OP on though are corporations that take public funds. Why should these corporations be allowed to benefit at the expense of the people in our country? It would make more sense to me to only allow companies that return profit to its customers, to be allowed to do business with the government. There is no unconstitutionality in limiting who may accept public funds, if those funds are to benefit the people.

Credit Unions are one example of not for profit business that returns wealth back to its customers. The more profits a credit union makes, the more benefits the members receive. Energy companies are supposed to do this too...its mandated by law. However, when have you ever seen an energy company lower their rates? They don't because they have no desire to make the community they live in more affordable, rather they want their big fat paychecks.

I would vote to make any company that does business with the United States government pass along any profits it receives back to the people or use the profits to reinvest in producing a more superior product. I do not think the Constitution would prohibit this, as the government works for the people and those corporations that are benefited from serving the people should not use that to reap riches beyond imagination.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
The rich are getting richer because of the poor " lower to middle class" The company's only make this type of money because of the low wages that make the " lower to middle class", you know the very workers "people" the rich are getting rich off. a min and a max is a great idea would close the gap.
Before my illness I employed 3 people building roofs in South Australia Even though I could have taken home 4k a week more because I owned the contract company my wife and I decided that we were supporting not only my small family but 3 others in total 18 people so my wife and I decided that we would split the company total income evenly. And it sure did raise the the living standards of all my workers. And work production went up by 60% and even though i was in the trenches with them I all so noticed how happy and cheerful they were, And the interaction was nothing like I have seen in other jobs I have had.
So yeah its a good idea.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I agree with what you say about there being the makers and the takers, but in a totally opposite way, in my eyes its the 99% who are the makers of everything ! The 1% are the takers of everything.

Soner or later there will be nothing left to take and then what do the takers become ?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaBetaGammaX

Originally posted by ShortMemory

We all know that one dollar for one person means one less dollar for another.


Well, why don't you start? When you work, (I assume that you do), do you keep only enough to feed yourself, and give the rest away?

Because if you buy anything else, like a house or some clothing, then you are bettering yourself, and taking that extra dollar from many in the world who don't even have food.

well at the moment i dont make much so most goes to the 'need' expenses.
but this isnt about the people who are making normal wages..
this is about the people who have more then enough money and choose not to help the world with it.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
i understand what a lot of you are saying
but most of the problems you raise are already issues with the current system in place
obviously a maximum wage is unrealistic, but it is in the right direction
and similar ideas such as 'you cant earn 'x' more then your least paid employee' are more realistic
i think using the general concept it would be easy for someone with financial and economic exprience to make a rock solid system to put in place



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


No , not in a Free Market Capitalists Society . Those who Do Deserve more than those who Don't.........



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by linux2216
The American Dream = NO MAXIMUM WAGE!

Anyone who believes wages should be capped is a communist. All these young idiots occupying Wall Street have no clue what they're asking for. Herman Cain is right. They're barking up the wrong tree. Obama and the socialist Democrats are the root of their problems.
edit on 10/10/2011 by linux2216 because: Spelling

the american dream doesnt exist
id rather be called a communist then a socialist..sure some of its ideas are wrong but genreally its a lot more realistic then socialism.
all these young 'idiots' will be able to save the world once all you old idiots are dead..you certianly have done nothing to help the world and deserve exactly what the world is going to get..i bet you dont even know why you believe what you do, your just believing what you have been forced to believe
herman cain is right in the fact that he knows tptb will just have them all killed if they actually get a chance at reshaping the world, but we will fight for our rights
all politicans are the problem, if you believe obama is wrong then you must think the rest are wrong because they are all the same



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by linux2216
The American Dream = NO MAXIMUM WAGE!

Anyone who believes wages should be capped is a communist. All these young idiots occupying Wall Street have no clue what they're asking for. ... They're barking up the wrong tree. Obama and the socialist Democrats are the root of their problems.
edit on 10/10/2011 by linux2216 because: Spelling
Hear hear! You sound like a libertarian! Rules and regulations are the weapons of bureaucrats and big government supporters. What kind of whacked out world do we live in where people are begging for rules and restrictions on their lives?

I had to ... the Herman Cain part, I don't know enough about him to agree. But I do know that Obama and Congress (and California politicians) are sworn enemies of Liberty and the Bill of Rights, and free capitalism.

Send this message to the White House and Congress:

STOP TAKING OUR MONEY AND GIVING IT AWAY TO BANKS AND UNIONS AND WALL STREET!!!!!!

Don't you think it's odd that Obama, the Fed, the Democratic party and Congress (and Bush) handed TRILLIONS to Wall Street, and suddenly are saying 'Oh yeah, bad bad banks, and we're with you on the occupy wall street movement'. Bull. Turn your eyes to the exact people who handed your money to wall street - Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bernake, Congress, and the cast of characters in power in 2008 (same Congress).
edit on 11-10-2011 by Dbriefed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
the bailouts are a good example of how there should be a few strings attached when fed money is given...
banks got the money, banks gave their top management huge raises, obama and team came into office and noticed theses big raises and bonuses....decided to add a few strings to the deal, if I remember right, one dealt with the bonuses and raises...
then well, oops, we don't need this money, here you can have it back!!!! and the money was given back (or well, I've heard some say that the fed gave them the money through some scheme)....

add some strings to the money and we'll probably have less lobbyists in washington!!!

and to connect that money to the payroll of the company, the wage/salary difference between the higher paid employees and the lesser paid would be a good start!
everybody gripes about the personal responsibility of the individual and how these social programs encourage people to not be responsible, but well, the companies have a responsibility to the communities they live in, the country they are in, and the employees that are working for them. and there's many people right now that can't take on their responsibilities because these companies have been allowed to shirk theirs for so long!!!



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Ok, but why should a person be punished if they're content to work a normal full-time job. Where I live, even if you earn more than the average wage you can't own a house, you have to rent because you are too poor to qualify for a mortgage. If you support a wife and a couple of kids, it's insanely hard to stay out of debt... not completely impossible yet, but give it another 12 months... I think most normal people don't need Ferraris and maids to feel satisfied, it would be enough to not have to puzzle over their budget for hours trying to find a way to make the small amount of money they have pay for all the necessities.
Why should it be that way for anybody working an honest full-time job? If you want to make money a priority in your life, I don't really think you should be constrained by a limit. But I don't think it's acceptable that somebody who doesn't make money a priority should be expected to live a life of struggling with the damn stuff. It's like, even if you don't want it to be a priority it's forced onto you as the primary one. Happy with your full-time job? Sorry that's not good enough because the pay doesn't cover the bill you racked up trying to cook your food and heat your water for that 5 minute shower you like to greedily indulge in before work. That's just plain current system failure.
But, the majority of the world's population would find such a life with such comparatively insignificant issues enviable... that's undeniable proof that the system is a failure.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


This is in no way a Free Market Capitalists Society. If it were then this probably wouldn't even be an issue.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 





Why should these corporations be allowed to benefit at the expense of the people in our country?


Absolutely not, I don't think they should. We are on the same side and we should be able to cap pay IF the co is getting substantial govt ie public funding...things change, all the rules change.

In that case the public should get an org breakdown, salaries, updates, prospectus and a stock report and the public should be given all facts and a VOTE beforehand to see if this is what they want to do.

Some essentials should be not for profit.
This means in other words they should be government run.

We subsidize this stuff from private companies that screw their own government and so us.
Fix the system. It starts out fine and then loses effectiveness along the line. There are ways to repair these inequities and make it fair for both the entrepreneur and the people for certain essentials like food and fuel.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
yes there should be a maximum wage, but unfortunately the people who control things like that wouldnt want it to happen as they are part of the few that get a large wage. also, if a maximum wage was put into place people would find ways around it.

but yeah, on paper it would be a good way to sort out a lot of problems






top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join