Sergeant Thorne wrote:...sooner or later the market will weed out those who aren't worth what they are receiving.
The market-trends-toward-efficient-usage-of-employees model makes sense, especially in a vacuum.
...but it just doesn't happen that way.
Slick's point about inherited money aside, working people who aren't worth their wages/salary often tend to find a way to stick around, and the people who are worth more often get overlooked. There are a number of reasons this happens (everything from nepotism to social biases to poor employee evaluation methods to plain deception).
Foil, sadly I fall in this category. I work on contract for the gov't. Have been in the same job for 5.5 yrs. I work with 3 employees that are the laziest workers ever. They talk back to the bosses (deputy Director and Team lead) and sit around all day playing on there smart phones or watching YouTube videos. It's a sad world that I can't get hired permanently because I would have to compete with every tom/dick and harry for this job even though I'm the most qualified and educated. How these people got in you ask? They came out of school and were bridged into the job. Sadly once they are off probation, no one wants the headache of trying to fire them for being lazy.
Corsair Vengeance 64GB 2x32 6000 DDR5, Asus PRIME B760-PLUS S1700 ATX, Corsair RM1000x 1000 Watt PS 80 Plus Gold,WD Black SN770 2TB NVMe M.2 SSD, WD Blue SN580 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD, Noctua NH-D15S Universal CPU Cooler, Intel Core i7-14700K 5.6GHz, Corsair 5000D AIRFLOW Tempered Glass Mid-Tower ATX, Asus GF RTX 4070 Ti Super ProArt OC 16GB Video, WD Black 6TB 7200RPM 256MB 3.5" SATA3, Windows 11
Will Robinson wrote:In a capitalist system it is proper for acquiring wealth to prop you up. You don't have to always be producing to deserve your wealth. If you produce until you are middle aged and acquire enough live off of your accumulated wealth you are not being "propped up" you are spending your own wealth.
Some people's wealth can be purely due to good luck or the right circumstances, not necessarily due to hard work. Is that OK?
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Will Robinson wrote:In a capitalist system it is proper for acquiring wealth to prop you up. You don't have to always be producing to deserve your wealth. If you produce until you are middle aged and acquire enough live off of your accumulated wealth you are not being "propped up" you are spending your own wealth.
Some people's wealth can be purely due to good luck or the right circumstances, not necessarily due to hard work. Is that OK?
Sure! If you won a million dollars on a lottery ticket should you have to split it up with the nearest 50,000 poor people because your good luck was 'unfair'?!?
You know what one of the great things about our system is? I don't know what you have and it is, literally and legally, none of my business!
Will Robinson wrote:In a capitalist system it is proper for acquiring wealth to prop you up. You don't have to always be producing to deserve your wealth. If you produce until you are middle aged and acquire enough live off of your accumulated wealth you are not being "propped up" you are spending your own wealth.
Some people's wealth can be purely due to good luck or the right circumstances, not necessarily due to hard work. Is that OK?
Yes it is OK. I suspect slick may a comment. As to hard work, other than luck or whom you were born to, hard work is the option most people will use to get ahead.
tunnelcat wrote:Say you got that wealth from a government disability stipend because you could no longer work?
If you are implying someone received too much settlement for an injury then adjust the mechanism that determines the size of the award based on what is a proper compensation for the injured party. There is no need to try and create fairness to others who don't receive the award. Why introduce irrelevant people to that equation?
Government can create and maintain equitable opportunity, to the best of its ability and within the constraints of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but it can't legislate equality in motivation and talent and luck.
We will always have winners and losers and lots of people moving up or down the ladder. Keeping the ladders functional is a good role for government. Picking winners and losers and suppressing innovation and productivity is a bad role for them.
Some people think the minimum wage is a good way to maintain a decent minimum level of quality of life but I don't think it is doing that. I'm not convinced anyone has a good reason for thinking it does. It has become a political talking point and an index for union contracts to work off of but I don't think the health of the workforce or population at large is dependent on the minimum wage.
tunnelcat wrote:Say you got that wealth from a government disability stipend because you could no longer work?
I don't think anyone got any wealth from a govt. disability check.
Let's just say it's possible.
Ok, but lets also say that we shouldn't use fairness to fix it if its a problem. Lets just make future awards suitable for the damages the victim suffered.
Will Robinson wrote:In a capitalist system it is proper for acquiring wealth to prop you up. You don't have to always be producing to deserve your wealth. If you produce until you are middle aged and acquire enough live off of your accumulated wealth you are not being "propped up" you are spending your own wealth.
Some people's wealth can be purely due to good luck or the right circumstances, not necessarily due to hard work. Is that OK?
Sure! If you won a million dollars on a lottery ticket should you have to split it up with the nearest 50,000 poor people because your good luck was 'unfair'?!?
You know what one of the great things about our system is? I don't know what you have and it is, literally and legally, none of my business!
ummm, aren't you doing that exact thing through the high tax on gambling winnings?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Will Robinson wrote:In a capitalist system it is proper for acquiring wealth to prop you up. You don't have to always be producing to deserve your wealth. If you produce until you are middle aged and acquire enough live off of your accumulated wealth you are not being "propped up" you are spending your own wealth.
Some people's wealth can be purely due to good luck or the right circumstances, not necessarily due to hard work. Is that OK?
Yes it is OK. I suspect slick may a comment. As to hard work, other than luck or whom you were born to, hard work is the option most people will use to get ahead.
but that method hasn't worked for years, as I pointed out. You have two distinct economic groups in the US today, and they are moving, inexorably, in opposite directions, for the reasons I pointed out. You ok with that?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Will Robinson wrote:In a capitalist system it is proper for acquiring wealth to prop you up. You don't have to always be producing to deserve your wealth. If you produce until you are middle aged and acquire enough live off of your accumulated wealth you are not being "propped up" you are spending your own wealth.
Some people's wealth can be purely due to good luck or the right circumstances, not necessarily due to hard work. Is that OK?
Sure! If you won a million dollars on a lottery ticket should you have to split it up with the nearest 50,000 poor people because your good luck was 'unfair'?!?
You know what one of the great things about our system is? I don't know what you have and it is, literally and legally, none of my business!
ummm, aren't you doing that exact thing through the high tax on gambling winnings?
Well, no, I'm not because I think the arbitrarily maximum tax level on windfall income is tax gouging.
But yes it the law so 'we' are doing it but I don't recall any politician claiming it was justified because it is "unfair" to suddenly receive a large amount of money you didn't work for.....like a big campaign donation only you didn't lie to anyone to get it...
Letting the government own our wealth/income and then decide how much of it we deserve based on their definition of 'fairness' is communism 101. And that is bad by the way for those who are not sure.
If that practice became the norm it would spiral out of control rapidly into a complete communistic government and we would crash and bloody revolution would erupt. If you passed that as law today inside ten years we would be in complete civil war.
Here's where I think some people are wrong about this. Slick bemoans the amount of wealth that is transferred by way of inheritance. I think that it is fine. In our system some people will achieve more and earn more and some will luck up more and some will be the offspring of those wealthy people and will inherit what is left over. Sometime it will even be billions.
All good.
Where the problem lies is influence. People with great wealth can buy corrupt leaders and have laws crafted to serve them at the expense of others.
The solution isn't to make the government the owner of all wealth though!
That would kill innovation and the industrious spirit that leads to wealth of all levels.
An example:
You might live in middle class comfort because you are a pretty good salesman selling Apple Computers...yes Steve Jobs has passed on to his estate more money than you can ever dream of but if Jobs never invented Apple you might be selling vinyl siding...especially if the government was in charge and decided that's what they needed you to do for a living in the name of fairness.
The wealth that is out there now can be measured, counted, the potential for new wealth can not. Because 'wealth' isn't a static sum like in a game. Having pools of it accumulate in some people's estate doesn't mean they have unfairly hoarded the available wealth thus reducing your potential to have an accumulation of your own.
Letting them accumulate influence over the government will. So the solution isn't to turn the filthy rich power hoarders into the filthy rich power hoarding government!
The solution is to cut of the avenues of influence to government. Let the people continue to strive for their piece of the pie because it serves us all in many ways. Eliminate the bribery in government so the wealthy cant buy lawmakers and it won't matter who has how big of an accumulation of wealth because the pool of potential wealth is always full and waiting for us to find it. By dumb luck or hard work. As long as the wealthy aren't allowed to fence it off it doesn't matter that they got theirs already.
People don’t really understand how an economy actually works, therefore take the wrong peoples word for how to fix it.
If people would just get a grasp on the very basic nature of how every economy on the planet works at its core, then maybe, just maybe people could start to figure out how to improve it.
At the very core of every economy, whatever fancy name it goes by…is the sale or exchange of labor…therefore it is only logical to assume if you wish to get a fair price for your labor, you must also pay a fair price when you buy someone else’s.
It’s not rocket science.
But unfortunately I’m pretty sure it’s too late for us, and even that dog won’t hunt anymore.
I think every single person, when they get to the cashier at the Wal-Mart, should apologize and say the following…”I’m very sorry you can’t make more money to raise your family, but I have the god given right to cheap consumer goods”.
Will Robinson wrote:An example:
You might live in middle class comfort because you are a pretty good salesman selling Apple Computers...yes Steve Jobs has passed on to his estate more money than you can ever dream of but if Jobs never invented Apple you might be selling vinyl siding...
Amusing, because in the time before Apple Computer and friends came around, a person could make a decent living and get ahead in America by selling vinyl siding...
Concrete used to be called "Grey Gold". Many rags to riches stories around concrete contractors who started with nothing but a wheelbarrow and a shovel. Of course you do have to work hard when you start out.
Will Robinson wrote:An example:
You might live in middle class comfort because you are a pretty good salesman selling Apple Computers...yes Steve Jobs has passed on to his estate more money than you can ever dream of but if Jobs never invented Apple you might be selling vinyl siding...
Amusing, because in the time before Apple Computer and friends came around, a person could make a decent living and get ahead in America by selling vinyl siding...
Are you just hearkening back to a different era when selling siding paid a decent wage? It was once an innovative product and made in america no doubt and now it's probably made by slaves in Asia and prices have dropped and the novelty has worn off.
Do I follow you correctly or is my example flawed and I've failed to recognize it?
I know you must be going somewhere with that other than to just mention two possibly unrelated mileposts in Americas economic history, I just don't know for sure what it is you are alluding to
Will Robinson wrote:Are you just hearkening back to a different era when selling siding paid a decent wage? It was once an innovative product and made in america no doubt and now it's probably made by slaves in Asia and prices have dropped and the novelty has worn off.
Do I follow you correctly or is my example flawed and I've failed to recognize it?
I know you must be going somewhere with that other than to just mention two possibly unrelated mileposts in Americas economic history, I just don't know for sure what it is you are alluding to
It is amusing because in one sentence you manage to not only demean necessary American jobs, but also praise the very kind of evil corporation/political power that you claim to be against.
Will Robinson wrote:Are you just hearkening back to a different era when selling siding paid a decent wage? It was once an innovative product and made in america no doubt and now it's probably made by slaves in Asia and prices have dropped and the novelty has worn off.
Do I follow you correctly or is my example flawed and I've failed to recognize it?
I know you must be going somewhere with that other than to just mention two possibly unrelated mileposts in Americas economic history, I just don't know for sure what it is you are alluding to
It is amusing because in one sentence you manage to not only demean necessary American jobs, but also praise the very kind of evil corporation/political power that you claim to be against.
You got my take on it wrong.
I'm not against corporate success just the influence on government they can get. I believe you don't have to destroy the ability to create wealth in order to eliminate the influence. Any kind of government wage control, as was being proposed here, is not a way to solve the problem. Think about it, if the problem is money is used to bribe crooked politicians the solution surely shouldn't be cut out the middle man and assign the crooked politicians direct authority over the distribution every ones money!
As for vinyl siding salesman. I doubt it is a job that even exists anymore. You just go to some big box store and buy it or hire a contractor to install it...those national companies that used to send out siding salesman were thieves. I'm comfortable with having dissed the long dead niche ripoff industry.
Besides I think its OK to point out that some jobs suck more than others, its one of the reasons we have varying levels of pay. I can live with having done that.
Spidey wrote:I think every single person, when they get to the cashier at the Wal-Mart, should apologize and say the following…”I’m very sorry you can’t make more money to raise your family, but I have the god given right to cheap consumer goods”.
You know what? I refuse to even GO into Walmart, let alone give them my money for the privilege of buying their "cheap consumer goods". They are the single handed reason that everyone in the retail business is following compete on price instead of compete on quality. I'd rather spend a little more of my money on something that would last longer and be repairable instead of the break-right-out-of-the-box non-repairable crap that's sold nowadays from most retailers. And I'd rather spend a little more to make sure some poor wage employee can feed their kids and afford a roof over their head.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Please forgive the idiotic Liberal website I found this on, but there is a point to be made in that article.
Other than the one point that people earning more is good for the economy that article is full of rhetoric built on apples to oranges comparisons.
And the headline is that Costco's profits soared followed by the report that : "Costco Wholesale’s net income for its second quarter climbed 39 percent as it pulled in more money from membership fees, sales improved and it recorded a large tax benefit.”
They don't bother to tell us how much that large tax benefit is responsible for the 39% profit increase or if it will be there after the single quarter that they are using to illustrate the contrast with Walmart.....
If your profit comes from a tax benefit that is corporate welfare and shouldn't neccesarily be touted as something healthy for the economy!
So, yea, the liberal nature of that site and the liberal nature of the way the 'facts' are selectively revealed make me wonder.
I'd say do the comparison over a longer period and see how the numbers play out.
I love the idea presented by the people in that site's blog, that they can shop at a discount store without screwing employees…somebody tell that to an American TV manufacturer…no wait.
The single biggest event that is causing the downfall of the middle class was when the power shift went over to the merchants from the suppliers. Before that event, suppliers could set prices and the merchants had to sell products at a point just above to make a profit, now the merchants dictate the price they will pay for goods, forcing suppliers to make all kinds of decisions, like trying to bust unions and move overseas.
And it was the middle class people with plenty of expendable income that started to use the first of the big discount stores like K-Mart and JCPenny that started the entire damn thing. I have been doing business for over 20 years, and the biggest penny pinchers are the ones with the most money.
There were always 3 tiers of stores for people to shop in…the Five and Dime for people without much to spend…the middle of the road stores like Sears, Macys, etc. for everyone in the middle, and some high end stores for the rich to shop at.
The middle of the road stores like Sears sold good quality American made goods, and had a well healed staff of commissioned workers, and it was the middle class that abandoned these stores when the likes of K-Mart opened in the Malls, without the commissioned sales staff and the cheaper imported goods, mostly clothes…and the rest is history.
If you care to look up the actual chain of events leading up to the shift in power…look it up, but be prepared to avoid sites like the one vision just posted, and get some actual non-biased info.
woodchip wrote:Can you define and give examples of evil corporations?
Abuses the legal system to ban competing products.
Evades taxes.
Outsources as much production as possible to factories in China infamous for toxic and or suicide inducing working conditions.
woodchip wrote:Can you define and give examples of evil corporations?
Abuses the legal system to ban competing products.
Evades taxes.
Outsources as much production as possible to factories in China infamous for toxic and or suicide inducing working conditions.
Amen to that but my take is a company is supposed to put profit high on the priority list.
Politicians take payouts to refrain from regulating many of those problems away so my theory is let the corporate machine seek maximum profit and have government stop them from going too far instead of selling them exemptions for doing it.
another thing that should alarm more people, and is DIRECTLY tied to tax policy and greed, is the concept of long-term profitability vs. short-term profits that generally come at the expense of workers. The latter has been the norm, especially since cap gains taxes were lowered, and high income tax rates were capped much lower. What you see far more than you did 3 or more decades back is the wholesale rape of businesses by 'capital investment' companies, that yield a quick return, but do nothing to provide for a long-term profitable business model, beyond continuing to plunder companies hitting a temporary lull in their business.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Thanks to Wall Street's demand for positive quarterly profits and all that gambling, err, derivative trading. Someone's got to support their gambling habit.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
callmeslick wrote:another thing that should alarm more people, and is DIRECTLY tied to tax policy and greed, is the concept of long-term profitability vs. short-term profits that generally come at the expense of workers. The latter has been the norm, especially since cap gains taxes were lowered, and high income tax rates were capped much lower. What you see far more than you did 3 or more decades back is the wholesale rape of businesses by 'capital investment' companies, that yield a quick return, but do nothing to provide for a long-term profitable business model, beyond continuing to plunder companies hitting a temporary lull in their business.
You make a good point there and that is a difficult thing to correct. It kind of makes my skin crawl to realize it but thinking about what the correction to those kind of practices, speculators and corporate raiders etc would be puts me inline with bin Ladin's position on the whole financial marketplace.
the fix isn't that difficult, because we had it in place, and working perfectly in 1955:
1. top tax rate on all income over $1,000,000 per year(indexed up for inflation, the number in 1955 was $250,000) of 90%
2. Banks cannot be in the investment or insurance businesses, and visa versa for insurers or investment houses
3. Cap gains taxed at 25%
problem solved....moreover, wealthy people still remained wealthy. The corporations focused on long term plans and rewarded execs with longterm stock options(with fixed valuation, unlike current options that can be devalued) to drive that focus. The employees, being critical to longterm corporate survival, were compensated well and fairly, and treated as long-term human investments(thus, high job security for competent workers). The middle class expanded wildly.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
callmeslick wrote:the fix isn't that difficult, because we had it in place, and working perfectly in 1955:
1. top tax rate on all income over $1,000,000 per year(indexed up for inflation, the number in 1955 was $250,000) of 90%
2. Banks cannot be in the investment or insurance businesses, and visa versa for insurers or investment houses
3. Cap gains taxed at 25%
problem solved....moreover, wealthy people still remained wealthy. The corporations focused on long term plans and rewarded execs with longterm stock options(with fixed valuation, unlike current options that can be devalued) to drive that focus. The employees, being critical to longterm corporate survival, were compensated well and fairly, and treated as long-term human investments(thus, high job security for competent workers). The middle class expanded wildly.
I'll vote for you if you show me you can stuff #2 back in Pandoras box....
well, that's an option, to be sure, but wouldn't have any effect on the way business is conducted or focused, to be honest. The only way to address that is by the return to how finance was regulated, and very high income was taxed in the 1950s and 60s.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Never mind, you are not worth talking to, it was you that advocated a flat tax.
I advocated that as a fairer alternative. The question here was how you turn around the way business is run in the US. For that, a flat tax without a lot of regulatory reform, would be useless. Further, the only way to put the brakes onto unbridled greed, ever, is a massive tax on income over a certain set top end. I'm not saying that I necessarily advocate for that, but if people wish to see a return to a nation where you actually GROW the middle class, and focus the economy on domestic consumption of US made products, there is a clear blueprint(from the past success) to do so. The flat tax is not going to achieve that. What the flat tax WILL achieve is a much fairer way to obtain the necessary revenue to accomplish what the public demands by way of services and social safety nets. Does the distinction between the two goals seem clear to you? No dodge in any way, just apples and oranges.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
