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.
Right, 97% of workers must continue to get paid a below average wage
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious
Wait, maybe we could require people who go to school to actually maintain their grades in order to continue.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious
And maybe, just maybe, we can only allow people to just get 1 degree instead of being career students.
Then what?
Don't you get it? It's your own plan, after all. In your fantasy, you're GUARANTEED a job. Think about that for a moment. 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 nobody wants him, too bad for the employers, because he's GUARANTEED employment. So he can keep jerking his bosses around and do absolutely nothing whatsoever, and can bounce around from one GUARANTEED job to another, without that pesky inconvenience of having to worry about performing his GUARANTEED jobs well so he can feed his family or keep a roof over his head. No, Mr. Smith has no incentive whatsoever to take his work seriously, because that paycheck is GUARANTEED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious
You might want to get more educated on the different worldviews before you commit to being a cheerleader for the one that is exploiting you because of your ignorance.
I'm a "cheerleader" for logic, reason and common sense. Nothing more. Your fantasy exhibits none of those qualities.
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.
I agree that 100% of income should go to the workers. That is how things work now.
Wrong. That is not how things work now!
Only 50% gets paid to workers, the other 50% gets paid to people who do not work, people who collect unearned income:
Quote:
The pay is proportioned by difficulty of the job as well as risk taken on the job.
You are wrong again.
Do you really think Derek Jeter, the Yankees shortstop, gets paid 500 times more than a miner because playing baseball is more risky?
Do you really think Derek Jeter gets paid 1000 times more than a landscaper because playing baseball is more physically difficult than doing hard labor all day?
Pay is determined by bargaining power, not by difficulty and risk. And we do that because it is the only system that allows the top 3%, who rule the world, to exploit the bottom 97% of workers.
Quote:
Again...we already have a system that pays fairly.
And once again you are wrong.
Dude, there is nothing fair about slaughtering a whole population of people in order to steal the planet's resources so you can privatize them. There is nothing fair about paying half our income to the lucky few who own most of these stolen resources. There is nothing fair about the top 3% using their bargaining power to exploit the entire workforce by taking most of the income they produce: They don't work harder, they don't earn that money from willing consumers in the market, and there is no economic justification that requires us to pay them this amount in order for the economy to work well. And there is nothing fair about allowing them to do this and forcing everyone else to be broke, forcing 97% to get paid below average incomes and forcing 50% to live in or near poverty.
The only fair system is to pay 100% of the income to workers since they are responsible for 100% of the production, not half the income. And the only way to fairly allocate that income is based on how hard you work, not based on how much exploitation you can get away with.
Quote:
Tell me, if I said you could sit in a chair and count stuffed bears coming off of a product line for 20 hours per week for $115k per year, or you could work 90 hours per week constructing complex financial and mathematical models which, if you are wrong, will result in hundreds of people losing their jobs for the same pay, which would you choose?
That is not what I advocate. If you work 90 hours, you will get paid 3 times more than someone who works 30 hours. And if you work an undesirable job, you will get paid more per hour than those who do desirable jobs.
Quote:
The percentage of people who make 'below average income' is meaningless...immaterial to this conversation.
When 97% of workers get paid a below average income and 97% of workers are not below average workers, there is something terribly wrong about the fairness of that system.
Quote:
Everyone has bargaining power. Research a company. Study an industry and put together proposals that proves you can add value to a company. Present that, and you will get a better job which pays more money.
Did you get that off of a late-night infomercial? That is not how our economic system works. Nobody is going to pay you above market rates for some job because you researched their company.
Quote:
With all due respect, you seem to want to make a high salary without actually working for it. That is the farthest thing from what I want for my country.
What part of "100% of income should be paid to workers and we should allocate income based on how hard you work" tells you that?
If I have a million coconuts and 1 million coconuts is considered a great quantity of valuable property, I am wealthy whether you have 1 million coconuts or not.
Wrong.
One million coconuts is only valuable if someone else requires them. If everyone has one million coconuts, then everyone's coconut needs are being met, and any extra coconuts you have are worthless.
However, if you're on that desert island with me, and you're starving while trying to figure out how to make that one coconut you have last for the next week, then my one million coconuts suddenly gain an extraordinary amount of value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious
If you are unable to grasp the meaning of wealth
I understand it just fine. You seem to be having some problems with it, though.
As I said before, wealth is a RELATIVE concept. If everyone has similar buying power, regardless of whether the units of exchange are coconuts, dollars or anything else, then nobody is wealthy. Get it? Probably not. One is only "wealthy" if their holdings - whatever those may be - have a value that greatly exceed those of someone else. Then, and only then, compared to that other person, they are wealthy.
For instance, take President Obama (please! ) for example. Compared to you, he is a wealthy man. Compared to Bill Gates? Not so much. Wealth is RELATIVE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairnessIsGlorious
you are a cheerleader for a system that is robbing you of most of your wealth.
Once again, I challenge you to explain - in great detail - how *I* (that's me personally, not using some fantastic generalities) am being exploited, and by whom.
Please read my posts before replying to them, if you're going to reply at all.
Maybe you did, and you're simply unable to comprehend the words... OR, maybe you can't defend your idiotic idea in the face of such a simple and common story, and you understand (although I doubt it) just how horrifically insulting it is to those of us who have actually taken the risks and put in the time to turn an idea into a successful business.
Wait.. Why am I arguing with a bona fide OWS clown?
Those OWS morons are a lost cause. Somewhere along the lines, their parents ROYALLY screwed them up, and for whatever reason, they simply can't deal with reality. They all want an $80k job with a corner office, right out of college. Nobody taught them that they have to EARN those things, and simply existing doesn't count toward that.
At least they're nice and obvious about how messed up they are. Makes it real easy to avoid them when looking for new employees.
If I didn't answer your question, maybe ask it again instead of writing a post full of childish rants.
...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.
Work and physical labor are not the same things
Quote:
You are wrong again.
Do you really think Derek Jeter, the Yankees shortstop, gets paid 500 times more than a miner because playing baseball is more risky?
No, he is paid more because he is a better player and provides more entertainment.
Quote:
Do you really think Derek Jeter gets paid 1000 times more than a landscaper because playing baseball is more physically difficult than doing hard labor all day?
Physical difficulty has nothing to do with it. He is paid more than a landscaper because it is MUCH more difficult to be a Derek Jeter than it is to plant trees.
Quote:
Pay is determined by bargaining power, not by difficulty and risk. And we do that because it is the only system that allows the top 3%, who rule the world, to exploit the bottom 97% of workers.
You seem to have trouble reading posts on this thread. 97% of people do NOT make a below average income. Please see my other posts.
And what is bargaining power determined by? The benefits and costs of the first party (what I get out of it and how difficult it is) compared to the cost to the second party of not agreeing (the risk involved in entering the deal).
Difficulty and risk are the definitions of bargaining power...
Quote:
And once again you are wrong.
Dude, there is nothing fair about slaughtering a whole population of people in order to steal the planet's resources so you can privatize them. There is nothing fair about paying half our income to the lucky few who own most of these stolen resources. There is nothing fair about the top 3% using their bargaining power to exploit the entire workforce by taking most of the income they produce: They don't work harder, they don't earn that money from willing consumers in the market, and there is no economic justification that requires us to pay them this amount in order for the economy to work well. And there is nothing fair about allowing them to do this and forcing everyone else to be broke, forcing 97% to get paid below average incomes and to force 50% to live in or near poverty.
The only fair system is to pay 100% of the income to workers since they are responsible for 100% of the production, not half the income. And the only way to fairly allocate that income is based on how hard you work, not based on how much epxloitation you can get away with.
Let me try this a different way, since you are having trouble keeping up. You want to work in a factory. Great! You need $500,000 to open the factory. You don't have $500,000, but I do. If you aren't going to pay interest on loans, why would I EVER give you that money?
Furthermore, if I could loan you that money, and you pay me back at 5% interest per year, and this causes you to make 10% more money per year than you invested, how is that not a positive result for everyone?
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.
Quote:
That is not what I advocate. If you work 90 hours, you will get paid 3 ties more than someone who works 30 hours. And if you work an undesirable job, you will get paid more per hour than those who do desirable jobs.
So essentially you don't want anyone to work traditionally difficult jobs? Job pay is not a linear scale across industries and functions.
Quote:
When 97% of workers get paid a below average income and 97% of workers are not below average workers, there is something terribly wrong about the fairness of that system.
Again, this isn't true. Please see my other posts.
Quote:
Did you get that off of a late-night infomercial? That is not how our economic system works. Nobody is going to pay you above market rates for some job because you researched their company.
Are you serious? No wonder you are unhappy with the economy!
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.
Quote:
What part of "100% of income should be paid to workers and we should allocate income based on how hard you work" tells you that?
...you are advocating a 20 hour work week, and you are advocating that unskilled laborers be paid extremely high salaries.
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?
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.
