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.
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.
Earned income and unearned income are financial terms.
If you deposit money at a bank and collect interest, that is unearned income to you. The people getting paid at the bank who are managing your money are working and they would be getting paid earned income.
Quote:
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?
I don't advocate a system where everyone gets paid the same.
Also, keep in mind that since going to school is work, students are paid an income.
I advocate 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.
Quote:
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?
There is no amount of hard work you can do that will ever give you a reasonable chance at getting paid what Jeter does.
A much better system for workers is the one described here. The average worker will get paid 4 times more and work half the time. That is a much better deal than the 1 in a million chance at becoming the superstar shortstop for the Yankees.
Quote:
How hard a person works has absolutely nothing to do with how much they should earn.
The whole purpose of income is to be an incentive to work and work hard. So that is the only legitimate economic justification for paying one worker more than another.
Quote:
And neither calculation gives you a number where 97% of people make below an average wage in America....
Provide sources for where this calculation is wrong:
That couldn't be farther from the truth. You can't fabricate definitions of terms to try and win an arguement.
Like I said, bargaining power is based on the alternatives you have. It has nothing to do with difficulty or whatever you said.
"Inequality of bargaining power is a concept used in social sciences and humanities, particularly law and economics to denote the situation where freedom of contract ceases to be real and markets fail.
The concept denotes the situation where one party to a "bargain", or some kind of contract or agreement, has more and better alternatives than the other party. This results in one party having greater "power" than the other to choose not to take the deal and makes it more likely that this party will gain more favourable terms."
It can manage the money supply better than private competing individuals and it will be able to manage the investment supply better than private competing individuals.
Quote:
In addition to causing massive inflation
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:
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!
You are free to invest. You just cannot collect unearned income. You need to work in order to get paid an income.
Sure, some people will break the law and collect unearned income. So should we allow people to print their own money in order to eliminate counterfeiters? Or end taxation to end all the tax evasion? Or make murder legal to get rid of all the murderers?
Our current corrupt economic system has already destroyed the economy. 18% cannot get a full time job, 55% do pointless jobs that can be automated with existing equipment, 97% make a below-average income. 50% are in poverty or close to it, 1 million school kids are homeless each year. 1800 school kids are living in cars in just 1 Florida county alone. You can't be serious!
Quote:
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.
A worker is anyone who spends personal effort in contributing to the production of our goods and services. A worker is not just someone who does manual labor.
Quote:
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?
I would say the person who makes 12 hammers is working harder. That is not a meaningless metric.
If hammer making was a performance based job, the person who made 12 hammers would get paid more than the one who made 6.
Quote:
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.
You need to read my post again if that is what you think.
In the system proposed here you would make at least $115k or $230k for working 20 hours. That is likely 4 times more than what you would make in today's system.
You are free to invest. You just cannot collect unearned income. You need to work in order to get paid an income.
So why would someone choose to put up the necessary capital investment (there's that phrase again) to get a business going if you're not allowing them to collect any profits from it?
Quote:
Sure, some people will break the law and collect unearned income. So should we allow people to print their own money in order to eliminate counterfeiters? Or end taxation to end all the tax evasion? Or make murder legal to get rid of all the murderers?
Earned income and unearned income are financial terms.
If you deposit money at a bank and collect interest, that is unearned income to you. The people getting paid at the bank who are managing your money are working and they would be getting paid earned income.
So you are ignoring the work a person does to find the best bank to deposit money into?
Quote:
I don't advocate a system where everyone gets paid the same.
Also, keep in mind that since going to school is work, students are paid an income.
Where would that money come from?
I advocate a system where everyone gets a free unicorn on their birthday, that doesn't mean it can happen.
Quote:
I advocate 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.
I am removing parts of your post where you are blindly copying and pasting from your original message. Please actually put thought into this and respond to what I am saying.
Who is a 'worker'? Please give me the definition. We already have a system that pays 100% of income to the workers.
Quote:
There is no amount of hard work you can do that will ever give you a reasonable chance at getting paid what Jeter does.
So you are giving up before you start? Don't push your own personal laziness onto the rest of us.
Quote:
A much better system for workers is the one described here. The average worker will get paid 4 times more and work half the time. That is a much better deal than the 1 in a million chance at becoming the superstar shortstop for the Yankees.
I have worked like hell to make much more than 4x minimum wage. Why would I want to reward people who were too lazy to do anything but push shopping carts around a parking lot while I busted my a** working night and day to make decent money?
Quote:
The whole purpose of income is to be an incentive to work and work hard. So that is the only legitimate economic justification for paying one worker more than another.
How hard a person works is meaningless. I couldn't care less if one of my employees works four times harder than another. I care if one of my employees produces four times the results as another.
Quote:
Provide sources for where this calculation is wrong:
I already addressed this issue (as well as your mistake with it). I won't repeat myself because you have difficult reading.
Quote:
Like I said, bargaining power is based on the alternatives you have. It has nothing to do with difficulty or whatever you said.
"Inequality of bargaining power is a concept used in social sciences and humanities, particularly law and economics to denote the situation where freedom of contract ceases to be real and markets fail.
The concept denotes the situation where one party to a "bargain", or some kind of contract or agreement, has more and better alternatives than the other party. This results in one party having greater "power" than the other to choose not to take the deal and makes it more likely that this party will gain more favourable terms."
Great, you can read wikipedia. Now please look at the mathematical equation to calculate bargaining power. Bargaining power is a calculated term, not a vague description!
Quote:
The FED has successfully done exactly what it was mandated to do. Here is a chart of inflation and volatility before and after the FED:
It can manage the money supply better than private competing individuals and it will be able to manage the investment supply better than private competing individuals.
First, please post the sources of your numbers behind that graph. How was the CPI calculated in the 1800s without making massive assumptions?
Second, You don't even understand what the FED does! You want to expand the FED and claim that your plan won't cause inflation? Good lord the stupidity.
Quote:
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:
Stop parroting the same thing over and over. Please actually think for yourself and give an opinion that isn't copy and pasted from a blog.
I already explained why your system would either cause massive unemployment in the skilled labor sectors or cause massive inflation. Please address that post.
Quote:
You are free to invest. You just cannot collect unearned income. You need to work in order to get paid an income.
...investing is working...
Quote:
Sure, some people will break the law and collect unearned income. So should we allow people to print their own money in order to eliminate counterfeiters? Or end taxation to end all the tax evasion? Or make murder legal to get rid of all the murderers?
This is one of the stupidest arguments I have heard in a long time. I am not talking about repealing existing laws. I am talking about NOT ENACTING new laws. There is an enormous difference.
Quote:
Our current corrupt economic system has already destroyed the economy. 18% cannot get a full time job, 55% do pointless jobs that can be automated with existing equipment, 97% make a below-average income. 50% are in poverty or close to it, 1 million school kids are homeless each year. 1800 school kids are living in cars in just 1 Florida county alone. You can't be serious!
Let me correct this for you: 18% choose not to work hard enough to find a job, 55% do jobs that are absolutely necessary and add value to the economy, 97% is a number based on an incorrect calculation, 14% are below poverty (50%? seriously? How are you comfortable just making up numbers like that?)
What are YOU doing to solve this? If you feel strongly, don't whine about the government not doing things. Get out there and do something.
How many hours per week do you volunteer to help homeless people? What percentage of your personal income do you donate to those in need?
Quote:
A worker is anyone who spends personal effort in contributing to the production of our goods and services. A worker is not just someone who does manual labor.
Great, so under your definition, all investors are workers. What is the problem?
Quote:
I would say the person who makes 12 hammers is working harder. That is not a meaningless metric.
If hammer making was a performance based job, the person who made 12 hammers would get paid more than the one who made 6.
Suppose both people are working equally as hard, and making hammers simply comes naturally to the person making 12. Should they both be paid the same?
Quote:
You need to read my post again if that is what you think.
In the system proposed here you would make at least $115k or $230k for working 20 hours. That is likely 4 times more than what you would make in today's system.
I understand your post, it simply isn't realistic. I don't want to live in a world that would crumble at the seams as yours would.
I already make very close to you $115k, and got there by my own sweat and tears. Why would I want people to get the same salary without the pain and sacrifice that it SHOULD take to get a good salary?
Who would be hiring someone for $115,000. It certainly would not be me, unless of course I can print my own money. Now if they could generate $500,000 in revenue for the company within that year and be 80% billable at about $115/hr, then maybe. To place that kind of a burden on a company, they must bring in more than they are costing the company. The salary is only the first part of the cost of their employment. The other way of doing it to make the dollar so worthless that even the least skilled can get paid that, but then the most skilled and knowledgeable would want at least $1.5 mil.
You are free to invest. You just cannot collect unearned income. You need to work in order to get paid an income.
in-vest
to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
Would you care to explain how your statement above DOESN'T make you look like a complete whackaloon?
Or maybe you have a definition of "work" that you haven't shared with us... OR, maybe you believe that people will invest their money without expecting any gain from that investment... I'll bet that's it.
to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
Would you care to explain how your statement above DOESN'T make you look like a complete whackaloon?
Or maybe you have a definition of "work" that you haven't shared with us... OR, maybe you believe that people will invest their money without expecting any gain from that investment... I'll bet that's it.
That's weird, because in that case, the investment would either be a gift, or an interest free loan. There would be no investing.
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.
