Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:28 PM
 
103 posts, read 64,537 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Motivation surely isn't important in this suggested system.
Motivation is most important. People are paid enough additional income to get them to do undesirable jobs and to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs (like entrepreneur).


Quote:
Why would we think about motivating once every person has been guaranteed a job?
You would be motivated to keep your job, to earn additional income and because you take pride in your work.


Quote:
I still wonder who funds this system.
You can see the calculation in paying out the incomes here:

Let's Raise The Minimum Wage to $115,000 per Year And Reduce Week To 20 Hours

 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,187 posts, read 993,481 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious View Post
It is popular with anyone who understands that using theft to privatize the planet is wrong, that paying half our income to people who don't work is not fair, that allocating income based on how much you can exploit someone is a scam, and that getting paid a below average income, which 97% of workers get paid, is a bad deal.
So you're solution, is to make sure no one has incentive to work but everyone will still get paid. But you think there will be some people who will work long hours doing jobs that take a lot of skill and knowledge, or there will be those still willing to invest in businesses, even though they are not getting any proportional rewards for that work, skill, knowledge and risk??

It's actually not FAIR if someone works their asses off to build a business from the ground up, puts in 60+ hours a week, doesn't take vacations, doesn't have a day off, can't call in sick, and makes something of themselves, then beyond all obstacles, starts hiring people and giving them wages equal to the work they put in.. and then some idiot comes along and tells the people working for the business owner that the worker deserves all the money/profit the business makes because without the employee their'd be no business. THAT is the very definition of unfair and unrealistic! THAT is the scam that the OWS people are trying to play on the American people and the President and his cronies are all too happy to play along with them!

People don't get paid for being a jackass, otherwise you'd be a billionaire!
 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,187 posts, read 993,481 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious View Post
Motivation is most important. People are paid enough additional income to get them to do undesirable jobs and to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs (like entrepreneur).
no, you keep saying there is a cap of 4x the lowest pay job and that there is only the 14.5 trillion in wages to be spent. So for someone to be incentivised to do those undesirable jobs, you'd have to get MORE than that 14.5 tirllion you keep talking about, which would neccessarily raise prices on everything, which then would also raise the wages of the lowest person paid, which then would cause another wage increase to those who need MORE of an incentive to do the "dirty jobs". Do you see the cycle there? That is what so many people are trying to get you to see, there is no way that things stay as they are, unless you don't want those "icky" jobs to get done, or the hard ones, or the risky ones, or the new ones... etc.


Quote:
You would be motivated to keep your job, to earn additional income and because you take pride in your work.
Like hell I would! I take pride in my job well done and get paid in proportion to how well I do it... I know this because I am the business owner and I know excactly what my customers will pay me for how well I provide my services to them. If I didn't provide good services, they wouldn't use me and I wouldn't make any money. I take pride in that. Take away the money that I get, and forget about it! I wouldn't do this job for free... or for the same amount that someone else gets for flipping burgers, cleaning house, or going to school! Why would I? When I can get the same amount of money for a helluva lot less stress and a lot more of my own time. Let some other ****** work their asses off for me!
 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Maryland
7,795 posts, read 6,366,001 times
Reputation: 9927
I can't wait to see the healthcare system when all of the doctors flee the country and we're left with the ones who 'aren't in for the money'. Don't worry, though. They work 20 hours a week.
 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:40 PM
 
Location: 'Murica
1,302 posts, read 2,941,722 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious View Post
Cost of Minimum Wage Workers
$115k is $55.28 per hour.
They make up 88.3% of the total labor (88.3 = 100 - 2.5 - 9.47).
$10.872 trillion = $55.28 * 88.3% * 222,736 million hours
So your idea is to put the top 15th percentile of workers on income parity with Walmart greeters?

Is this really the OWS idea of "fair"?
 
Old 08-07-2012, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,660 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14992
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious View Post
Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices. Prices for everything, on average, rise. In order to have have inflation in a $14.5 trillion dollar economy, you need to produce the same amount for more than $14.5 trillion. That is mathematically impossible to do when you only pay out $14.5 trillion in income.
Now we're getting somewhere.

Ok. We'll use my business as an example. I can't tell you exactly what we do, as it would put my anonymity at risk, but I'll tell you we're in the trucking industry, and it's a service based business. We don't sell any physical products.

I charge X for our service. Charging X, my partner and I make a decent living, and we're able to afford two additional employees who also do ok.

In order to cover your "minimum wage" requirement, we would have to charge more than 2X for our services. Your system would inflate the rates we must charge, just to make the minimum required wage, and it doesn't compensate us for the additional hours we put in each week or the risks we took in starting the business.

My business is not unique. Your system would necessarily have the exact same effect on every single business in operation. In the cases of businesses that sell physical merchandise, those prices would skyrocket out of control. Our income to expense ratio is pretty decent, due to the nature of our business, but margins in retail are generally very slim.

If your system were to be implemented, you wouldn't see a single new business spring up. Most new businesses operate in the red for a period of time (two years is typical) before they start turning a profit. During that time, the owners generally just scrape by, and often don't take a paycheck at all. How could an entrepreneur start a new venture, when there's no possibility of even making the GUARANTEED payroll?

It seems to me that you found three numbers on a government website, broke out your calculator and proceeded to build an amazing fantasy around them. You may have spent some time creating that fantasy, but make no mistake - that's exactly what it is. You considered all the rainbows and unicorns, but you didn't consider the practical reality or the mechanics of your vision. It's an impossible dream, and not just because it'd be impossible to implement. It's impossible because it simply wouldn't work in the real world.
 
Old 08-07-2012, 06:09 PM
 
103 posts, read 64,537 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You don't know as much as me, and yes he can back up his claim. For starters, he just has to say two words: Wage Inflation.

I guess you over-looked that animal.
All we are doing is re-allocating EXISTING income. We are not increasing the total amount of income that is getting paid out. So it does not cause inflation.

If all we did was increase the minimum wage to $115k, and kept everyone else's income the same, that would cause inflation. But that is not what we are doing. We are also lowering the top pay from hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to just $460k. The amount we are reducing the top pay is exactly equal to the amount we are increasing the minimum pay. The net result is no increase in price on average. This is math 101.

If you have a $14.5 trillion economy and you only pay out $14.5 trillion in income, it is mathematically impossible to have inflation. How is the economy going to inflate beyond the $14.5 trillion if only $14.5 trillion is being spent? It can't. It is impossible.

You can see the calculation in paying out those incomes here:

Let's Raise The Minimum Wage to $115,000 per Year And Reduce Week To 20 Hours


Quote:
It is magnificent
I agree.


Quote:
Physics is not about equality or fairness, and neither is Economics. Physics is about achieving equilibrium or balance, and Economics does the same thing, but don't equate "balance" with "fairness."
We don't need the economy to be fair because you bizarrely define physics as "about achieving equilibrium or balance"? lol


Quote:
"Fairness" is highly subjective, and neither quantifiable nor can it be qualified, but balance is objective and can be qualified or quantified.
Let me go out on a limb and quantify fairness.

Murdering people in order to privatize the planet is not fair. Paying workers only half the income for what they produce is not fair. Allocating income based on how much exploitation you can get away with is not fair.

100% of the income should be paid to workers since they generate 100% of our production. That is fair.

And since the only economic reason for paying one person more than another is to get them to do undesirable jobs or to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs, differences in income should be limited to only what is necessary to get people to do undesirable jobs and give their max effort. That is fair.


Quote:
It is Economics that dictates how many should be employed, not you, and not I, and not some magical formula.
It is basic common sense, not economics, that says the more people you have work, the more you will produce. If you have 1 million people building houses and 1 million people unemployed, and if you gave those 1 million unemployed jobs to build houses, you will roughly build twice as many houses.


Quote:
If Economics says that only 52% of your Civilian Labor Force shall have jobs, then that's just the way it is, and you must accept that. You cannot fight the Laws of Economics any more than you can fight the gravity well of a Black-Hole.
What!?!?

So when 10 million people find themselves unemployed and starving, giving them jobs so that they can live is as difficult as repealing gravity? lol

I can't with these people in these forums. The twisted logic is too much.


Quote:
And if there's no "natural savings rate," then what?
Then you impose a tax on gross sales so that you have enough investment money to fully employ everyone as explained here:

Forum Post: 1: Replace Capitalism with Democracy | OccupyWallSt.org


Quote:
The difference between banks and venture capitalists
There will be both commercial banks who only make collateralized loans and investment banks that work like venture capitalists and invest in start ups.


Quote:
That's your unqualified belief that is not rooted in facts. They obviously have knowledge, skills and experience that you do not possess, otherwise you would be part of the 3%.
Yes, everyone who is not in the top 3% is dumb and incompetent. lol


Quote:
I for one, do not want democracy. Neither did Plato, who said democracy was a failure. Plato was a republican. And the Founding Fathers, they designed the Constitutional US exactly has Plato designed his Republic.
And Aristotle criticized this idea by saying it will lead to a government run by wealthy people since they are the only ones with the resources to win a national election. And they will put in place policies that serve the wealthy's interests, not the general public's.

And that is exactly what we have today.

Aristotle said representatives should be chosen by lot so that you always have a representative sample of the public in office.

Perhaps you should re-think your elitist system.
 
Old 08-07-2012, 06:15 PM
 
103 posts, read 64,537 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
If you were the writer of that can you reveal which Occupy group you were a member of?
I am not a member of any occupy group. I occasionally post to their website.
 
Old 08-07-2012, 06:18 PM
 
103 posts, read 64,537 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
... up to 4x the "minimum," but no more.

Explain to me why anyone would take the risks involved in starting a business when they're no potential for a robust return on those risks.

You are so, so clueless.
If you took the same time reading the actual post as you did making childish insults, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

Nobody risks their own private money on a business. All investment is done using public funds. It is explained in the post!
 
Old 08-07-2012, 06:35 PM
 
103 posts, read 64,537 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Not sure where you got your information, but at best, you're confusing average with median. There's a difference, you know. I suspect that the truth is much worse than that, though. I think you're just pulling numbers out of your arse.
Total income: $14.5 trillion
Stats about all US cities - real estate, relocation info, crime, house prices, cost of living, races, home value estimator, recent sales, income, photos, schools, maps, weather, neighborhoods, and more


Divided by total hours worked: 222,736 million hours
Stats about all US cities - real estate, relocation info, crime, house prices, cost of living, races, home value estimator, recent sales, income, photos, schools, maps, weather, neighborhoods, and more


Gives you the average income per hour worked of $65.


97% of all workers make less than this amount.
PINC-11 - U.S Census Bureau

A number very similar to average income is worker productivity. Worker productivity is total income, minus items such as rent since worker productivity has no impact on rent, divided by total hours worked. So worker productivity will be slightly lower than the average worker income number but pretty close.


The BLS is the govt agency responsible for producing worker productivity (it is just under $65/hour):


International Comparisons of GDP per Capita,GDP per Hour, and Related Measures, 1960–2009


Quote:
Sure. Try that. Know how grades would be maintained in your fantasy? Teachers would take kickbacks from students who were getting paid to do nothing. That's how.
lol


Quote:
It doesn't matter how poorly you perform - you're GUARANTEED employment. Who backs that guarantee, I don't know, but it's your fantasy, so whatever. If Mr. Smith gets fired, who cares? He's GUARANTEED to get hired somewhere else, right?
If you get fired, you will incur a financial penalty, so there is incentive to not get fired.



Quote:
Hey - since you're replying anyway, why not explain just how I'm being exploited. You've obviously got it all figured out, so be specific - don't toss out nonsensical generalities. Explain to me exactly how *I* am being exploited, and by whom. Thanks in advance for the words of enlightenment.
It is all in the post if you just read it. Just read the part titled Institutionalized Exploitation.

Exploitation is using another person's labor without paying them an adequate compensation. Even though the bottom 97% of workers do nearly all of the work in this country, the top 3% are taking nearly all of the income. That is because of exploitation.

The top 3% are using their bargaining power to command higher incomes than they deserve. And the only way to pay them these higher incomes is to pay the bottom 97% less than they deserve. So the bottom 97% are getting exploited.

I give 5 reasons why the top 3% are getting paid more than they deserve. And I debunk the claim that they get paid more because they provide more value.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top