Politicks

[dogpet]

Hobotronic2037, have you noticed no-one is quoting you?

[Noodle]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

In the U.S. I think you’d have to change the constitution to be able to regulate CEO wages. Or have the political will to pass it as a law (possibly with a veto proof majority) and have a Supreme Court that would uphold it on appeal, probably something that won’t happen for decades at the earliest, considering how the court is constructed.

Also, even if you regulate this, there would be no guarantee that the the extra money would be distributed to the workforce. It could just as easily be used to upgrade equipment or more likely office amenities and art in the executive suite.

The only way to really control private industry is to nationalize it. Hello Venezuela.

It's definitely pie in the sky, but you think it's unconstitutional?

If the company owners, executives and whatnot have hit their earnings cap, it's fine if they use money for legitimate equipment and office stuff. But they don't get a raise unless everyone gets a raise. Although I suppose they would likely install amenities just for themselves.

I often hear that things weren't always so unequal. What has changed to make people hoard wealth so ruthlessly at the expense of their fellow Americans?

Edited to quote Hobo I tend to quote or not quote with no rhyme or reason.

[dogpet]

Noodle wrote

Edited to quote Hobo I tend to quote or not quote with no rhyme or reason.

Just me then I get a blank page when I try to quote Hobo.
One for the Admin's?

[Sinfidel]

Noodle wrote

It's definitely pie in the sky, but you think it's unconstitutional?

If the company owners, executives and whatnot have hit their earnings cap, it's fine if they use money for legitimate equipment and office stuff. But they don't get a raise unless everyone gets a raise. Although I suppose they would likely install amenities just for themselves.

I often hear that things weren't always so unequal. What has changed to make people hoard wealth so ruthlessly at the expense of their fellow Americans?

Edited to quote Hobo I tend to quote or not quote with no rhyme or reason.

If a Union attempts to get a large wage increase for its members, government soon steps in and puts the kibosh on that. And then there's the legislated "minimum wage" for the working poor, which actually becomes the maximum wage. But, for the rich and greedy, government heartily approves greed unlimited. After all, the legislature is a good ole boys club of millionaires who dare not ruffle the feathers of their fellow greeedsters. They even provide huge bonuses to crooked bankers, paid for, of course, by the minimum wage crowd when they get taxed on their Walmart purchases, while the greedsters avoid paying their share through the miracle of tax havens, available only to the rich and greedy.
Capitalism? OK, but there need to be limits on greed. Fat chance of that, until the gullibles stop electing criminals to govern them in fake democracies.

[Hobotronic2037]

Noodle wrote

It's definitely pie in the sky, but you think it's unconstitutional?

If the company owners, executives and whatnot have hit their earnings cap, it's fine if they use money for legitimate equipment and office stuff. But they don't get a raise unless everyone gets a raise. Although I suppose they would likely install amenities just for themselves.

I often hear that things weren't always so unequal. What has changed to make people hoard wealth so ruthlessly at the expense of their fellow Americans?

Edited to quote Hobo I tend to quote or not quote with no rhyme or reason.

Yeah, I mean I think because it’s not an enumerated right that it would fall under the tenth amendment as something that would go to the states. That said, the state’s could probably enact salary caps. But then corporations would just move to a friendlier state without a cap. And that would leave communities without industry and tax coffers less full.

As a side note, if the high court tilts even further right, we may see them reinstate the precident of Lochner vs NY, where the court ruled in the early 1900s that the federal government has zero business meddling in corporate world, including minimum wage.

I found this New York Times article that is a pretty good primer on the ramifications of capping executive pay. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/b...my/04view.html
It makes some good points and some I disagree with but it’s a balanced mainstream view. Their thought is to tax all high earners more. Which seems fair if you’re gonna confiscate more wealth. Hit the pro athletes and movie stars and lottery winners hard too if you’re gonna look at life that way. My personal thought, again, is that I don’t envy wealth or even care if people are richer or poorer than me. I’ve never heard a rational argument for why income inequality in free-ish markets is bad. To me it’s only inevitable. Bill gates is insanely rich because millions and millions of individuals wanted what he had to offer and opted to give him money to acquire it. Their self interest, as much as his, made him rich. Those earnings are now his property to do with as he sees fit. I think self-interest, call it greed if you must, is very important to human and societal progress. It’s an important aspect of our constrained human nature.

But that’s just one person’s opinion. I value your opinion highly too! Thank you for your kindness and the thoughtful exchange, noodle!

[Hobotronic2037]

Sinfidel wrote

If a Union attempts to get a large wage increase for its members, government soon steps in and puts the kibosh on that. And then there's the legislated "minimum wage" for the working poor, which actually becomes the maximum wage. But, for the rich and greedy, government heartily approves greed unlimited. After all, the legislature is a good ole boys club of millionaires who dare not ruffle the feathers of their fellow greeedsters. They even provide huge bonuses to crooked bankers, paid for, of course, by the minimum wage crowd when they get taxed on their Walmart purchases, while the greedsters avoid paying their share through the miracle of tax havens, available only to the rich and greedy.
Capitalism? OK, but there need to be limits on greed. Fat chance of that, until the gullibles stop electing criminals to govern them in fake democracies.

Great post! I agree with this almost completely. Cronyism, subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, tax breaks and all other forms of government corporate welfare that favor one group above another are fucking immoral and should be abolished. They are not free market principles. They pick winners and losers and create a two-tier society where access to opportunity is not equal. This hurts not just those outside the favored circle but the economy as a whole, as it creates artificiality and undermines the principles of a free market economic engine — killing or discouraging innovation, competition and participation, as well as other beneficial economic activity.

[Smellyoldgit]

dogpet wrote

Just me then I get a blank page when I try to quote Hobo.
One for the Admin's?

Working fine with me.
If you have a persistent problem, best to message Chris via the 'Contact Admin' link at the bottom right of each page - she has sooper powers for sorting shit out!

[Noodle]

Do you guys have any opinions about the idea that when low wage workers qualify for and receive public assistance, taxpayers are picking up the slack for corporations that should pay higher wages? They pay low wages, which increases their profits, while the rest of us pay to keep them and their families from starving.

[Noodle]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

Yeah, I mean I think because it’s not an enumerated right that it would fall under the tenth amendment as something that would go to the states. That said, the state’s could probably enact salary caps. But then corporations would just move to a friendlier state without a cap. And that would leave communities without industry and tax coffers less full.

Would you consider current federal minimum wage laws unconstitutional as well?

It really annoys me when businesses hold communities hostage that way. "Well if you expect us to pay our share, we'll just move somewhere where we won't have to and take all the jobs with us." I'm reminded of Amazon's choosing a city for their second headquarters. Basically all the candidate cities were in competition to see which one would expect Amazon to contribute the least as a corporation.

As a side note, if the high court tilts even further right, we may see them reinstate the precident of Lochner vs NY, where the court ruled in the early 1900s that the federal government has zero business meddling in corporate world, including minimum wage.

Ah, I see. That would be interesting.

I found this New York Times article that is a pretty good primer on the ramifications of capping executive pay. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/b...my/04view.html
It makes some good points and some I disagree with but it’s a balanced mainstream view. Their thought is to tax all high earners more. Which seems fair if you’re gonna confiscate more wealth. Hit the pro athletes and movie stars and lottery winners hard too if you’re gonna look at life that way. My personal thought, again, is that I don’t envy wealth or even care if people are richer or poorer than me. I’ve never heard a rational argument for why income inequality in free-ish markets is bad. To me it’s only inevitable. Bill gates is insanely rich because millions and millions of individuals wanted what he had to offer and opted to give him money to acquire it. Their self interest, as much as his, made him rich. Those earnings are now his property to do with as he sees fit. I think self-interest, call it greed if you must, is very important to human and societal progress. It’s an important aspect of our constrained human nature.

I have often thought that if people are freely giving you or your business money, no one should be able to take the money away from you. On the other hand, taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. Also, nobody "makes it" on their own. Their employees (and often themselves) are educated in public schools. They use our roads to move their products. Police and government maintain the law and order that protects your property. Etc.

On the other other hand, I agree that there will be some inequality. People need incentives to do anything. Actual socialism is invariably a disaster, but there needs to be social programs and limits on capitalism. More limits than there are now, I think.

But that’s just one person’s opinion. I value your opinion highly too! Thank you for your kindness and the thoughtful exchange, noodle!

D'aaawww. Thanks and same to you.

[Hobotronic2037]

Noodle wrote

Do you guys have any opinions about the idea that when low wage workers qualify for and receive public assistance, taxpayers are picking up the slack for corporations that should pay higher wages? They pay low wages, which increases their profits, while the rest of us pay to keep them and their families from starving.

My thought here is that it’s interesting to look at who is actually paying what. Fact is 45 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. If you look at it by percentages of who does pay, the top 1% account for a whopping 40% of all federal income tax. If you break it out by what the top 10% pay its 71% of all fed income taxes collected.

I also think you can’t really look at strictly the tax return of a corporate entity as a reflection of the total tax revenue base it generates. It the corporation is successful, and its employees earn enough to pay taxes, those taxes could be considered a byproduct of the corporation to some degree. I mean if the corporation didn’t exist those employees wouldn’t be paying taxes based on their earnings from it.

As far as taxpayers picking up the tab to keep low wage families from starving I think you are onto something there. The government does the very same thing to many military families who also need to be on government assistance to make ends. That said, if we force Walmart to raise hourly wages they will just hire less people. So less people would have jobs and more would end up on public assistance. It’s far from an ideal situation either way I will grant you that.

[Hobotronic2037]

Noodle wrote

Would you consider current federal minimum wage laws unconstitutional as well?

It really annoys me when businesses hold communities hostage that way. "Well if you expect us to pay our share, we'll just move somewhere where we won't have to and take all the jobs with us." I'm reminded of Amazon's choosing a city for their second headquarters. Basically all the candidate cities were in competition to see which one would expect Amazon to contribute the least as a corporation.



Ah, I see. That would be interesting.



I have often thought that if people are freely giving you or your business money, no one should be able to take the money away from you. On the other hand, taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. Also, nobody "makes it" on their own. Their employees (and often themselves) are educated in public schools. They use our roads to move their products. Police and government maintain the law and order that protects your property. Etc.

On the other other hand, I agree that there will be some inequality. People need incentives to do anything. Actual socialism is invariably a disaster, but there needs to be social programs and limits on capitalism. More limits than there are now, I think.



D'aaawww. Thanks and same to you.

I’m not smart enough to figure out how to do the interlacing quotes so I’ll just answer all down here.

I believe that the FDR Supreme Court ruled the minimum wage constitutional. So that would make you correct and also me incorrect on whether they could set ceo pay, if all the stars were aligned. So I cede that point to you. I think that the chances of that happening politically are still, as you acknowledge “pie in the sky.”

Businesses holding communities hostage is disgraceful and unprincipled. It’s just wrong. It’s not how one individual should treat another, so why would it be right when you scale it up? The amazon H2 example is perfect and almost comical. Cities putting their full heads up bezos ass is just what he wants them to do. A principled businessperson would not do business that way.

I agree with your point on roads and bridges and such. That said, should people who pay no taxes be allowed to use them? I ask that rhetorically, of course. Of course everyone should benefit from them. But to me the question is, how far do you take “confiscating and redistrubuting resources” before it does become socialism/authoritarianism and then communism/totalitarianism? It’s a gray area, which is why, a tiny bit at a time, a free market invariably slides toward socialism.

—

Noodle, I want to share something with you that is slightly off topic, but I think related philosophically, and I’d love to get your thoughts on it. Recommended to me by a guy at work, I read this a couple of weeks ago and I still haven’t formulated an answer for it myself, or even what I think about it as a thought exercise. But I’ve been thinking about it a lot. It’s called Tale of a Slave. https://www.colorado.edu/studentgrou...ick_slave.html

[Smellyoldgit]

As a crazy damn furriner, I shall chip in my few cents on where 'murikkka is struggling to get it right.
At it's simplest, socialism is the provision of goods & services for everyone to use as needed. The economic method to make this happen is funding via taxation. Anything provided by taxation monies are socialism.
Public highways, bridges, signage, lighting etc, - if you don't want socialism - keep off the damn roads!
Public schools - the method to give every child a reasonably sound basic education.
Emergency Services - police, fire, ambulance - don't like socialism - sort out your own emergency services - I'm sure your own private rent-a-cop, personal fire truck and ambulance will out-do the current socialist efforts.
Utilities - private electrical, gas, water, telecoms, drainage, sewage treatment infrastructure, will I'm sure do a far better job than the current damn socialist fools! .... and of course, the good old $639 billion dollar murikkkan socialist military death machine!
The USA is already by far, the highest international spender on socialist based facilities by a considerable distance! - so why on earth you're so paranoid & just plain shit scared of 'socialism' is quite beyond me!

[Hobotronic2037]

Smellyoldgit wrote

As a crazy damn furriner, I shall chip in my few cents on where 'murikkka is struggling to get it right.
At it's simplest, socialism is the provision of goods & services for everyone to use as needed. The economic method to make this happen is funding via taxation. Anything provided by taxation monies are socialism.
Public highways, bridges, signage, lighting etc, - if you don't want socialism - keep off the damn roads!
Public schools - the method to give every child a reasonably sound basic education.
Emergency Services - police, fire, ambulance - don't like socialism - sort out your own emergency services - I'm sure your own private rent-a-cop, personal fire truck and ambulance will out-do the current socialist efforts.
Utilities - private electrical, gas, water, telecoms, drainage, sewage treatment infrastructure, will I'm sure do a far better job than the current damn socialist fools! .... and of course, the good old $639 billion dollar murikkkan socialist military death machine!
The USA is already by far, the highest international spender on socialist based facilities by a considerable distance! - so why on earth you're so paranoid & just plain shit scared of 'socialism' is quite beyond me!

I pretty much agree with what you say, but I’m working from a very different definition of socialism. “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

I think that it makes sense that a lot of shared infrastructure can be community/government-regulated, as it is now, but means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services beyond that seem best done, not by authoritarian central planners directing, but by autonomous individuals who are incentivized by self-interest. That’s my belief anyway. And I think history has proven it out. Although socialists are good at finding excuses for why socialism didn’t pan out other than pure economic ones. My distain of socialism isn’t out of fear or paranoia but out of caring for other people. True socialism hurts people through coercion, lack of choice and economic stagnation. Why increase human suffering?

FYI there is a giant movement on the left in America today toward embracing actual socialism. Time will tell if ‘merica succumbs to it or not.

[Smellyoldgit]

Your definition of socialism is much nearer to pure communism - where almost everything is provided by the state, with no private business. Most modern, 'developed' economies are mixed. What may be considered 'essential' or beneficial to all is provided via shared taxation. Other, non essential 'stuff' is left in the hands of private enterprise. I'm fucked if I can work out how to balance terminal greed with helping out the needy - and it looks like others far greater than me have even less of a clue.

[Kinich Ahau]

Here in Australia, after the last financial crisis there was a large backlash against CEO salaries and bonuses. The CEOs were shamed and cowered and vowed to listen and self regulate. This lasted a couple of years and just last week a study came out which showed that they are at record obscene levels again.

These raises and salaries are worst among the banks and financial institutions which have recently been investigated by a Royal Commission. The commission exposed extreme widespread fraud and criminal malpractice towards consumers. Self regulation is not an option.