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.
Way to defend your fantasy. I guess the obvious holes in your idea are just too much for you to deal with.
Remember - you came HERE and proposed your nonsense. We didn't seek it out. Don't complain when those you're proposing it to find tons of problems with it - it's a bad idea, and bad ideas deserve to be destroyed before they're implemented (although there's no chance whatsoever of your fantasy ever being implemented - anywhere).
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious
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.
Nice dodge. Really.
I was very specific in telling you to be very specific. I told you not to use vague generalities, and that's exactly what you did.
...there is no such thing as 'unearned income'. What are you talking about? If I take the risk of fronting you money as a loan, I am working to give you the resources you need to do your job.
Unearned income means income you did not work for it. It does not require work to get paid interest while your money sits in a bank.
Quote:
No, he is paid more because he is a better player and provides more entertainment.
Workers in performance based jobs should get paid based on performance. But we don't need to pay anyone hundreds or thousands of times more income to get them to perform. So that additional money is completely unnecessary and paid by exploiting other workers by paying them less.
Even though the bottom 97% of workers do nearly all of the work in this country, the top 3% like Derek Jeter 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.
The bottom 97% of workers have to be exploited in order to pay the inflated incomes of the top 3%.
The top 3% are getting paid 50 to 150,000 times more than others and this is undeserved because They don't work 50 to 150,000 times harder, They didn't earn this money from willing consumers, They do not provide 50 to 150,000 times more value than everyone else, There is no economic justification that requires us to pay them this amount in order for the economy to work well, They shouldn't have the power to force the rest of society into poverty or financial struggle, and it makes society undemocratic.
Quote:
97% of people do NOT make a below average income. Please see my other posts.
Average income is total income divided by total hours worked.
Average income is NOT total wages divided by total hours worked.
Quote:
And what is bargaining power determined by? Difficulty and risk are the definitions of bargaining power...
No, that is wrong.
Bargaining power is determined by who has more and better alternatives than the other party.
It allows people with bargaining power to exploit by taking advantage of the fact that the person with no bargaining power is desperate because they have no alternatives.
Quote:
If you aren't going to pay interest on loans, why would I EVER give you that money?
This would work better if you actually read what I propose before you critique it.
You wouldn't give me a loan if you were not paid interest. If you want to open a factory you would go to a bank and they would loan you the money. They use public funds, which is whatever the natural savings rate is, for investment which is given to them by the central bank.
Quote:
How hard a person works has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. A person is judged by what they produce, not by what they put into something.
There is a 97% chance you are getting exploited in our current system and making much less than you would in a fair system.
A fair market system is a system where:
1) 100% of the total income produced in the economy is paid to workers since they are responsible for 100% of the total production.
We must put an end to paying out HALF our income to people who don't work and just collect unearned income like rent, interest and profit because, as I will demonstrate, we don't need to pay these incomes, any more than we need to pay people an income to print their own money, in order to get our market economy to work and because the capital we are paying this unearned income on was produced with stolen resources.
2) And we must allocate that total income based on how hard you work, instead of based on how much exploitation you can get away with, since the whole purpose of income is to be an incentive to work and work hard. So differences in income will be based only on what is necessary to get workers to do mentally or physically difficult work and to get them to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs since this is the only legitimate economic justification for paying one worker more than another.
Paying 100% of our income to workers based on how hard they work is the only fair market system.
Quote:
A few months ago, I spent about 20 hours studying a single company and put together a proposal that would save them $300,000 per year if they hired me to implement my suggested changes. Guess what? I am in my final round of interviewing. You get out of life what you put into it, and with all due respect, you don't seem to want to put much into it.
And there is a 97% chance that job will pay you less than what you would get in a fair market economy.
Quote:
...you are advocating a 20 hour work week, and you are advocating that unskilled laborers be paid extremely high salaries.
And that is a much better deal than what you are getting in our current economy.
Quote:
Instead of artificially inflating what an unskilled worker is worth, why don't you put the time and effort into improving yourself to the point where you deserve a better salary?
The only incomes that are inflated are the top 3% who get paid based on theft and exploitation.
There is something terribly unfair with an economic system when a baseball player gets paid tens of millions in a country where 18% can't find a full time job, 97% are paid a below average income and 50% are living in or near poverty.
You would get paid far more money if 100% of our income was paid to workers and workers were paid based on how hard they worked.
I disagree that privatization is stealing so the rest of your argument is just blather.
Interesting. So when I come to your home and throw you out because I want the land you are living on and kill you if you mouth off to me, what would you call that?
I think it interesting that you joined CD just for the sole purpose of starting this thread, with every single one of your 47 postings being in this thread.
Anyway, let me tell you what my father once told me when I exhibited too much time on my hands:
Get a job.
Your insulting personality must be a hit at parties.
Unearned income means income you did not work for it. It does not require work to get paid interest while your money sits in a bank.
I am not sure that you could be more wrong....your money never just 'sits in the bank'. It takes an incredible amount of work to research the correct investments, research what companies might be successful, etc.
Work and Physical Effort are not the same thing!
Quote:
Workers in performance based jobs should get paid based on performance. But we don't need to pay anyone hundreds or thousands of times more income to get them to perform. So that additional money is completely unnecessary and paid by exploiting other workers by paying them less.
And what proof do you have of this? What would motivate someone to work a 90 hour/week job requiring years of training if they could be paid relatively the same as someone who does a mindless job with only a week of training?
Quote:
Even though the bottom 97% of workers do nearly all of the work in this country, the top 3% like Derek Jeter are taking nearly all of the income. That is because of exploitation.
This is because they have proven they can earn that much. Instead of whining, why don't you learn from them and work harder to earn more money yourself?
Quote:
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.
The bottom 97% of workers have to be exploited in order to pay the inflated incomes of the top 3%.
You deserve exactly the salary you can get for yourself. No more, no less. The fact that you think people 'deserve' a higher salary than they get is simply another way of saying that you are too lazy to put in the effort needed to become wealthy. Shame on you.
Quote:
The top 3% are getting paid 50 to 150,000 times more than others and this is undeserved because They don't work 50 to 150,000 times harder, They didn't earn this money from willing consumers, They do not provide 50 to 150,000 times more value than everyone else, There is no economic justification that requires us to pay them this amount in order for the economy to work well, They shouldn't have the power to force the rest of society into poverty or financial struggle, and it makes society undemocratic.
How hard a person works has absolutely nothing to do with how much they should earn.
Quote:
Average income is total income divided by total hours worked.
Average income is NOT total wages divided by total hours worked.
And neither calculation gives you a number where 97% of people make below an average wage in America....
Quote:
No, that is wrong.
Bargaining power is determined by who has more and better alternatives than the other party.
It allows people with bargaining power to exploit by taking advantage of the fact that the person with no bargaining power is desperate because they have no alternatives.
That couldn't be farther from the truth. You can't fabricate definitions of terms to try and win an arguement.
Quote:
This would work better if you actually read what I propose before you critique it.
You wouldn't give me a loan if you were not paid interest. If you want to open a factory you would go to a bank and they would loan you the money. They use public funds, which is whatever the natural savings rate is, for investment which is given to them by the central bank.
I did read what you wrote... essentially you want to expand the FED. Given the deplorable results the FED has given to date, why is this anywhere near a good solution? In addition to causing massive inflation, you also are choosing to open a new black market for investing, given that most people would still invest personal savings into new ventures. Contrats on growing the criminal class as well as destroying the economy!
Also, you never addressed my question....
Quote:
There is a 97% chance you are getting exploited in our current system and making much less than you would in a fair system.
A fair market system is a system where:
1) 100% of the total income produced in the economy is paid to workers since they are responsible for 100% of the total production.
We must put an end to paying out HALF our income to people who don't work and just collect unearned income like rent, interest and profit because, as I will demonstrate, we don't need to pay these incomes, any more than we need to pay people an income to print their own money, in order to get our market economy to work and because the capital we are paying this unearned income on was produced with stolen resources.
Please define what you mean by 'worker'. You haven't demonstrated you don't need to pay those incomes. You have demonstrated you don't WANT to pay those incomes because you don't want to put the effort in that you need to become good at fields other than mindless manual labor.
Quote:
2) And we must allocate that total income based on how hard you work, instead of based on how much exploitation you can get away with, since the whole purpose of income is to be an incentive to work and work hard. So differences in income will be based only on what is necessary to get workers to do mentally or physically difficult work and to get them to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs since this is the only legitimate economic justification for paying one worker more than another.
Paying 100% of our income to workers based on how hard they work is the only fair market system.
How hard a person works is a meaningless metric.
Suppose we are making hammers. You make six hammers an hour working as hard as you possibly can, I make 12 hammer per hour working as hard as I possibly can. Are you saying you would pay us both the same wage?
Quote:
And there is a 97% chance that job will pay you less than what you would get in a fair market economy.
And that is a much better deal than what you are getting in our current economy.
Right now if I prove I am worth it, I can get a very good salary. In your system, I would be working like hell to give more money to someone too lazy to actually put in effort themselves. No thanks.
Quote:
The only incomes that are inflated are the top 3% who get paid based on theft and exploitation.
There is something terribly unfair with an economic system when a baseball player gets paid tens of millions in a country where 18% can't find a full time job, 97% are paid a below average income and 50% are living in or near poverty.
You would get paid far more money if 100% of our income was paid to workers and workers were paid based on how hard they worked.
Tell me - personally, how many hours per week do you spend improving your on-the-job skills?
How would start up businesses afford these salaries? How would salaries be able to be supported by companies that don't make that much money in income without raising their prices?
You've stated that everyone is required to work. If they are lazy, they get fired and get another job and get fined. If they get fired and get another job, wouldn't that job have the same salary they were making in their old job? $115K? What would be the driving force to keep people active in their work?
I, for one, love my job and I am well compensated for what I do...but if your economy was put into place, I think I'd gladly take a fast food job at $115K and just sit back and watch the world go by. There is no room for growth in your economy. No need to strive for bigger and better things. No upward mobility.
It's a stupid plan that could never, and will never work.
Since you said you did not actually read the post, I'm not going to bother to respond. I'm interested in debating the merits of the post, I'm not interested in arguing with you.
People want, for example, cars. In order to produce cars we need people to work building them. The work people do building cars are called jobs. So those jobs are created by the consumer demand for cars.
...Then, once again, why don't you start a car company and utilize the concepts you propose?
Or like most OWSers, do you want someone else to put in all the effort to create such a company?
To risk their life's savings by investing it and building a successful company?
To build the factory?
To design and develop the vehicles?
To build the assembly equipment?
When you then come in and push the green button and collect a $115k paycheck for "working" 20 hours per week? Because that is what I have gathered.
You want business to do all these alturistic things, while ignoring the basics of business, of economics and profit motive.
Go ahead and start your own business. The same resources are available to you as to any other business owner. Demonstrate how this will work in practice. We have enough OWSers crapping in every park in the country...they should be able to get together, dig some dirt, process iron ore into steel, build a factory, use that steel and produce some cars. Heck, they should be able to do this in mommies and daddies garage.
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.
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.
