Reasonably addressing income inequality - Dan Price - Is he showing its possible and what are the results of himDoingIt? (capitalism, 2015)

[txbullsfan]

CEO Dan Price slashed his salary to give employees a raise shares more good news:
https://www.aol.com/article/finance/...ares/23826099/

Please read the article.

Some take away's from the article:

"Price, who helms the Seattle-based payment processing company, famously slashed his $1 million salary in 2015 to give all employees a minimum $70,000 salary."

"While Price said he still wishes other companies would follow suit and make big changes to address inequality, he's glad he did. The experience has also taught him a lot about himself, he added, and underscored that he made the right choice.

"I took a seven-figure pay cut in order to afford the initial increase, and my life has gotten richer for it," he said. "I feel a bigger sense of purpose and harmony in my life knowing that we as a team are proving that there's a better way to do business."

- End article excerpts

The CEO Dan Price said this quote previously:
"I never want to make screw-you money like the rest of the financial services industry.”

After you read the article, some questions:

1. Is the United States economy incredibly capitalistic overall?
2. In effect, is our economy incredibly predatory overall?
3. Is Dan Price's mindset common among CEOs and top income earners or is it unique?
4. Do the statistics show we have a growing income inequality problem here in the US?
5. According to Dan Price's mindset and multiple studies, is growing income inequality harmful to people and ultimately society?
6. Is Dan Price showing that income inequality is a more manageable issue and that it is possible to reasonably address?
7. Would it be possible for other CEO's and the top 5% of income earners to do what Dan Price did?
8. What happens when we try to reasonable address income inequality like Dan Price did?

[Chas863]

Why would you think it is desirable to have income equality when it's very obvious that not everyone is equal in their knowledge, skills, ability, or desire to work hard and productively?

CEO's are paid (compensated) for their foresight and leadership ability which affects the entire company. Their decisions may affect the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of employees and many more thousands of their family members. There is no comparison between the importance of their job and the importance of a clerk or laborer at the bottom of the totem pole.

Trying to make everyone's salary equal (or nearly so) simply discourages incentive to work harder and work smarter. Why would anyone put forth the extra effort if it's just going to pay the same as coasting through the work week?

[skeddy]

Originally Posted by Chas863

Why would you think it is desirable to have income equality when it's very obvious that not everyone is equal in their knowledge, skills, ability, or desire to work hard and productively?

CEO's are paid (compensated) for their foresight and leadership ability which affects the entire company. Their decisions may affect the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of employees and many more thousands of their family members. There is no comparison between the importance of their job and the importance of a clerk or laborer at the bottom of the totem pole.

Trying to make everyone's salary equal (or nearly so) simply discourages incentive to work harder and work smarter. Why would anyone put forth the extra effort if it's just going to pay the same as coasting through the work week?

that's too hard for socialists to understand....

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

1. Is the United States economy incredibly capitalistic overall?

So what if it was?

I was with some Soviet army officers on Druzba '86 and I had my little boom-box with me.

They didn't know what cassette tapes were. They'd never seen them. I was trying to explain what digital audio tape (DAT) was and they didn't understand. They didn't understand CDs, either.

All they had was vinyl.

All the niceties and little things you don't appreciate in life are the result of Capitalism.

It is Capitalists who provide you with all the things you like, because Socialists -- whether government or non-government -- and Communists never will.

I gave them all my Levi blue jeans, too. In the Soviet Union, it cost too much to turn cotton into denim, so there were no denim jeans.

The cost of they fabric dyes was another factor.

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

2. In effect, is our economy incredibly predatory overall?

That has no bearing on Capitalism.

If you were knowledgeable about Economics, you'd know we use the Free Market System paired with Capitalist Property Theory.

Because you're not knowledgeable, you made the newby mistake of conflating Capitalist Property Theory with the Free Market Economic System.

That are not the same thing.

The Free Market consists of consumers of all classes engaging in voluntary transactions.

Some sellers are lacking in morals and ethics and will lie, engage in fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, or other fraudulent misrepresentations, but there are laws to punish those that do make the victims whole again.

Note that sellers who engage in fraud are not products of the Free Market System or Capitalist Property Theory, because such persons also exist in Command Systems and where the Socialist Property Theory is used.

In other words, it's part and parcel of human nature, and not any Economic System or Property Theory.

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

3. Is Dan Price's mindset common among CEOs and top income earners or is it unique?

Who cares? Price is free to do whatever he wants.

The average CEO salary in the US is $236,020.

That is reality.

I'm sure you will now rush to a propaganda website that has cherry-picked 500 CEOs from 500 companies out of the 23+ Million and claim CEO salaries are whatever, but that's not reality.

Just northeast of me is an area with 100+ manufacturing companies and they average about 450 employees each.

I happen to know a few CEOs do earn more than $1 Million but 90% earn $500,000 or less and most only earn about $250,000 to $350,000.

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

4. Do the statistics show we have a growing income inequality problem here in the US?

No. "Inequality" is a nothing-burger predicated on jealousy and envy and hatred and no objective measures.

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

5. According to Dan Price's mindset and multiple studies, is growing income inequality harmful to people and ultimately society?

No.

Pick one of the propaganda websites you use to peddle your nonsense.

I guarantee you they have committed the Fallacy of Equivocation by equivocating income with wealth.

On your other thread, the propaganda video you posted does exactly that.

If I recall, I think I pointed out exactly where in the video the propagandist commits the Equivocation Fallacy shifting the discussion from wealth to income.

Wealth and income are not the same thing.

There are many with extraordinary wealth, but zero cash.

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

6. Is Dan Price showing that income inequality is a more manageable issue and that it is possible to reasonably address?

What do you put on a nothing-burger? Nothing mayonnaise?

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

7. Would it be possible for other CEO's and the top 5% of income earners to do what Dan Price did?

No.

Because of your lack of understanding of all things-Economic, you don't understand the difference between Labor Cost and Wage Cost.

Labor Cost = Wage Cost + Benefit Cost + Tax Cost

Originally Posted by txbullsfan

8. What happens when we try to reasonable address income inequality like Dan Price did?

You get nonsense threads.

[mizzourah2006]

Gravity Payments has 100 employees, most of whom were probably already making at least $70k because it's a Software as a Service company. It's much easier to do on a very small scale. If the CEO of Walmart cut his pay (salary and bonuses) to $1 each employee would get an extra $10 that year. Hell if the company all the sudden became not-for-profit each employee's income would raise by $3k/yr.

[Lowexpectations]

Originally Posted by mizzourah2006

Gravity Payments has 100 employees, most of whom were probably already making at least $70k because it's a Software as a Service company. It's much easier to do on a very small scale. If the CEO of Walmart cut his pay (salary and bonuses) to $1 each employee would get an extra $10 that year. Hell if the company all the sudden became not-for-profit each employee's income would raise by $3k/yr.

Its a math problem that easier to solve in smaller sizes for sure

[Tencent]

There's something about Washington State and the Mountain States where this is easy to do compared to other regions. Is it legislative or political? Are taxes on businesses of that size lower? There's got to be some kind of secret sauce.

[Tencent]

RE: Mircea

All the niceties and little things you don't appreciate in life are the result of Capitalism.
Yet the problem is Uncontrolled capitalism leads to annihilation, starvation and death. I'm fine with that but the majority of Americans are not. During the Great Depression - Americans DIED of starvation and malnutrition...Our soft little hearts cannot deal with that in the modern era - Therefore NO pure capitalism for YOU!

It is Capitalists who provide you with all the things you like
It's not just the convenience factor, there are political elements of communism that suppress innovation in medicine and engineering sciences.

The Free Market consists of consumers of all classes engaging in voluntary transactions.

Some sellers are lacking in morals and ethics and will lie, engage in fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, or other fraudulent misrepresentations, but there are laws to punish those that do make the victims whole again.
The problem here is no one on Wall Street is ever held accountable for defrauding the American public. Same thing is happening in China - Tons of ponzi schemes which have debilitating worldwide economic effects. No one is punished for White collar crimes or the shadow banking so long as they provide the proper kick back to the politician in charge - Communist or Not.

No. "Inequality" is a nothing-burger predicated on jealousy and envy and hatred and no objective measures.
If 80% of the American public holds only 20% of the wealth yet generated 99% of consumer spending which benefits the top 1% I'd say that's a problem and unsustainable.

I guarantee you they have committed the Fallacy of Equivocation by equivocating income with wealth.
At some point in the chain someone needed income to create wealth. Whether it was a great great grandfather or not does not matter.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Tencent

RE:
The problem here is no one on Wall Street is ever held accountable for defrauding the American public. Same thing is happening in China - Tons of ponzi schemes which have debilitating worldwide economic effects. No one is punished for White collar crimes or the shadow banking so long as they provide the proper kick back to the politician in charge - Communist or Not.
[/b]

Very short list of jailed Wall Streeters:

Bernie Ebbers
Ivan "Ivan The Terrible" Boesky
Jeff Skilling
Bernie Madoff
Jordan Belfort
Allen Stanford

___________________________


The truth is traders, bankers and executives are busted regularly for everything from oil frauds (like selling old oil as new and grading frauds), banking frauds (like small town bankers keeping two set of books or Wells Fargo's bogus accounts scam), tax frauds (like Enron), stock frauds (like insider trading, manipulation etc.) and wholesale business fakery (like Theranos).

___________________________

People like you adopt cynical, close minded, "most successful people must be cheaters" attitudes in order to justify otherwise unsupportable/weakly supportable political and economic thinking.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by Chas863

Why would you think it is desirable to have income equality when it's very obvious that not everyone is equal in their knowledge, skills, ability, or desire to work hard and productively?

CEO's are paid (compensated) for their foresight and leadership ability which affects the entire company. Their decisions may affect the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of employees and many more thousands of their family members. There is no comparison between the importance of their job and the importance of a clerk or laborer at the bottom of the totem pole.

Trying to make everyone's salary equal (or nearly so) simply discourages incentive to work harder and work smarter. Why would anyone put forth the extra effort if it's just going to pay the same as coasting through the work week?

With all the various pay-to-play scandals, news reports on (legal) rigging of Ivy League admissions, etc. in recent years, it's hard for me to believe that anyone still thinks elites are being compensated for their talent. It's a good ol' boys club of rich people helping each other extract wealth from common people by leveraging their monopoly on capital. They run companies into the ground, accept a golden parachute and then take board positions on their friends' companies. It doesn't take some kind of genius gift of foresight to stroll into an existing company and cut expenses by firing 10% of the workforce and demanding the remainder work 10% harder for no money.

CEOs get compensated around $15m per year on average. The average person makes $25k/yr. You think CEOs are working 600 times as hard as the average person? The whole idea is absurd on the face of it. CEOs are highly compensated because they're in a position to abuse our economic system. No more, no less.