New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?

You and I don't have to, we aren't paying him. That's the concern of his employer, not ours.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

To answer your question, I don't have a problem with charity groups. I support a few myself. There is a huge difference between a charity group that I can voluntarily give my time and money to, and the government that takes my money with no promise of efficiency.
....

I accept your apology [/Stephen Colbert]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

...Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc. Perhaps the increase in minimum wage will widen this gap....

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...
Yes, that's exactly the problem. Damn little incentive to risk giving it up.

And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. ...

I've heard this argument before, and I don't think it's valid. When someone "stops earning" his "production" doesn't just dissappear. Someone else, who wants to earn has the opportunity to fill the "production hole" and make money for themselves. The one who "stopped earning" has to do something with his wealth. Even if he just puts it in the bank, the bank can use it to fuel the economy.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

....
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.....

But how much more equal?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.....

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results. ...

You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"? The best cut is one thing. In our society, the guy who shot the deer gets the meat, and throws the gnawed bones and knuckles to the rest of the team.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.

If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. The owner determines how much the top end people, as well as the peons, are paid. I don't think the CEO is worth 365 times what I am, but the owner doesn't feel that way.

But how much more equal?

Whatever they determine, because they are calling the shots

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

That has nothing to do with the fact that a paycheck is a reward for skill and effort. The people you are talking about don't get paychecks.

You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"?

The one paying it... he determines what it's worth to him.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. ....

And I'm saying there would be less need for charities and "government programs" if more of that went to the front line, lower paid employees, who are generating the income, and can't afford stocks. If you pay bottom-rung employees more, there would be more incentive to get off welfare - you said as much, yourself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

That surprises me.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

Funny I was just talking about this recently.

Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.

It is much easier to choose government regulations to get a raise than it is for unions but by choosing government, you are hurting unions by giving the unions less power since you are less dependent on them. Then you end up becoming too dependent on government regulations and you become a statistic and at the mercy of people that truly do not represent you.

If you choose unions, you are only helping the people that work at your company or are members of your union while people that can not get into unions are screwed. It is also much harder and take longer to get a raise in a union so the amount of work is against you in a union.

I would much rather choose unions because I believe in giving people power instead of the government but unions are very weak in the United States and sometimes you have to go to government to get change even if it will hurt the unions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Funny I was just talking about this recently.

Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.

That's not true, actually they go hand in hand.
The government raising minimum wage, only helps those at the very bottom and are covered by the minimum wage law. The union works for better wages for those above minimum wage as well. The government passes work safety rules that they don't have the manpower to enforce. Unions help force the company to abide by the laws and go further to institute safe/ergonomic practices, that the laws can't foresee. The government passes anti-discrimination laws but the unions see that all the people doing the same job, are paid equally. Etc, etc, etc...

Yes, I know that some unions have abused their power, and discriminated against minorities. But there are laws governing unions too. Anyone mistreated can sue and/or go to the government and file a complaint, against the union as well as the company. The union and the government are the same, in that the people make it as good or bad as they want it to be.