Maximum Wage? Why not?

Hello all :razz:

I was just wondering what the various arguments there are for and against a Maximum Wage in the US

(Lets say...No employee may receive ANY form of compensation more them twenty times their lowest paid employee. No consultant may receive more then 10% of the annual pay of the highest paid employee of any company in a one year period.)

I know it would be like trying to castrate a tiger on steroids with a butter knife and an oven mit but from what I have read this is how FDR was able to almost single handedly create the middle class following the Great Depression...
 
You've got to be kidding. No, there should not be a maximum wage limit. It would kill what's left of any incentive to excel in your chosen field. You could work your ass off and your only expectation in salary would be maxed at the same limit as that do-nothing idiot sitting next to you. There would be no reason to compete to be the first to come out with something new or better.
 
You sure you want to set that precedent? For if you do, what's to stop the G from later saying 20x is too much, not fair, and make it 10? 5? 2? And finally 0?

Why do you want to give the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet still more power? That's the real question.
 
Hello all :razz:

I was just wondering what the various arguments there are for and against a Maximum Wage in the US

(Lets say...No employee may receive ANY form of compensation more them twenty times their lowest paid employee. No consultant may receive more then 10% of the annual pay of the highest paid employee of any company in a one year period.)

I know it would be like trying to castrate a tiger on steroids with a butter knife and an oven mit but from what I have read this is how FDR was able to almost single handedly create the middle class following the Great Depression...

Because I'm not going to take the risk required to keep my company afloat for the mere possibility that I can only make a maximum of $600,000 when I sell it nor will I pay the receptionist more than $30,000 per year since the value added to the company simply isn't worth more than that. Ergo, no receptionist and only highly paid decision makers will be in my employ and we'll all take turns answering the phone. It's inefficient, but at least I can cash out and retire when the time is right.

I'm curious about the limitation on consultants. What's wrong with a freelance computer programmer designing a system for $200 per hour if it increases my profit by $500 per hour? Are you saying that just should not be available? No high earning specialists who do very well and are efficient?
 
Last edited:
I have never thought that there should be a cap on what people can earn. If for example A-Rod can negotiate a 10 year, 250 million dollar contract and a team wants to pay him that, well then good for him! So no, there should be no maximum pay.
 
You've got to be kidding. No, there should not be a maximum wage limit. It would kill what's left of any incentive to excel in your chosen field. You could work your ass off and your only expectation in salary would be maxed at the same limit as that do-nothing idiot sitting next to you. There would be no reason to compete to be the first to come out with something new or better.

I think anyone sitting in an office would be more than willing to work there ass off to make twice as much as the "idiot sitting next to them" to say nothing off X20.

A Maximum Wage would effect very few people.
 
No consultant may receive more then 10% of the annual pay of the highest paid employee of any company in a one year period.
I only just now saw this... I was able to comfortably RETIRE at age 42 after I struck out on my own doing industrial process engineering consulting and gouging the piss out of my customers for my work.

To me, it was gouging but to them it was a hugely profitable investment. For the one-time payment they gave me, (Usually $50K on the low end) in 2-3 weeks I have tripled or better, their productivity and slashed their controllable costs in half. This lasts well beyond the fiscal year the investment is made, and they made back what they paid me in the first six months of operation after I was finished. I worked CHEAP compared to what they were able to rake in year after year after I was gone. I could have quadrupled what I charged, but wasn't greedy.

Under your idiotic proposal, my market would have been limited only to the bigger companies instead of the small to medium-sized ones I serviced. I probably would never have struck out on my own and if I had, surely would never have been able to retire at such a young age. I would probably still be working.

But, that's the idea right? Keep the smaller to medium-sized companies at a huge disadvantage against the giant corporate competition, and keep people unable to retire so they can work and pay vig to the G until they die.

Nice. Not.
 
You sure you want to set that precedent? For if you do, what's to stop the G from later saying 20x is too much, not fair, and make it 10? 5? 2? And finally 0?

Why do you want to give the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet still more power? That's the real question.

Well I said twenty times because it seemed like a factor of magnitude that would still allow for a large disparity in compensation with regards to effort and effect. Slippery slopes are just speculation on a speculation.
 
You sure you want to set that precedent? For if you do, what's to stop the G from later saying 20x is too much, not fair, and make it 10? 5? 2? And finally 0?

Why do you want to give the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet still more power? That's the real question.

Well I said twenty times because it seemed like a factor of magnitude that would still allow for a large disparity in compensation with regards to effort and effect. Slippery slopes are just speculation on a speculation.
You said 20 times.... But that's the rub isn't it? WHO sets the bar? What qualifies them to do so? Then what stops them from moving the goalposts later?

You didn't answer the questions.

You sure you want to set that precedent? For if you do, what's to stop the G from later saying 20x is too much, not fair, and make it 10? 5? 2? And finally 0?

Why do you want to give the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet still more power?
 
You sure you want to set that precedent? For if you do, what's to stop the G from later saying 20x is too much, not fair, and make it 10? 5? 2? And finally 0?

Why do you want to give the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet still more power? That's the real question.

Well I said twenty times because it seemed like a factor of magnitude that would still allow for a large disparity in compensation with regards to effort and effect. Slippery slopes are just speculation on a speculation.

There is no slippery slope here. If you attempt to control economic decision-making through central planning, it WILL lead to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual. That's a fact.
 
Hello all :razz:

I was just wondering what the various arguments there are for and against a Maximum Wage in the US

(Lets say...No employee may receive ANY form of compensation more them twenty times their lowest paid employee. No consultant may receive more then 10% of the annual pay of the highest paid employee of any company in a one year period.)

I know it would be like trying to castrate a tiger on steroids with a butter knife and an oven mit but from what I have read this is how FDR was able to almost single handedly create the middle class following the Great Depression...

The democrats are not going to allow minimum wage to go much higher, they can't afford to lose the votes. The more people who can provide for themselves the less dependence you have on Government.
 
No consultant may receive more then 10% of the annual pay of the highest paid employee of any company in a one year period.
I only just now saw this... I was able to comfortably RETIRE at age 42 after I struck out on my own doing industrial process engineering consulting and gouging the piss out of my customers for my work.

To me, it was gouging but to them it was a hugely profitable investment. For the one-time payment they gave me, (Usually $50K on the low end) in 2-3 weeks I have tripled or better, their productivity and slashed their controllable costs in half. This lasts well beyond the fiscal year the investment is made, and they made back what they paid me in the first six months of operation after I was finished. I worked CHEAP compared to what they were able to rake in year after year after I was gone. I could have quadrupled what I charged, but wasn't greedy.

Under your idiotic proposal, my market would have been limited only to the bigger companies instead of the small to medium-sized ones I serviced. I probably would never have struck out on my own and if I had, surely would never have been able to retire at such a young age. I would probably still be working.

But, that's the idea right? Keep the smaller to medium-sized companies at a huge disadvantage against the giant corporate competition, and keep people unable to retire so they can work and pay vig to the G until they die.

Nice. Not.

There is no need to be nasty, 10% of a CEO making 1,000,000 a year would still have netted you 100k for what ever services you performed for them. The only difference is that the janitor would also be making 50k.

If they only want to pay him 20k then the CEO only gets 400k and you only get 40k, sorry :(
 
Hello all :razz:

I was just wondering what the various arguments there are for and against a Maximum Wage in the US

(Lets say...No employee may receive ANY form of compensation more them twenty times their lowest paid employee. No consultant may receive more then 10% of the annual pay of the highest paid employee of any company in a one year period.)

I know it would be like trying to castrate a tiger on steroids with a butter knife and an oven mit but from what I have read this is how FDR was able to almost single handedly create the middle class following the Great Depression...

Welcome to the board...

a little tune in your honor:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCFibtD3H_k]YouTube - THE INTERNATIONALE (in Russian)[/ame]
 
No consultant may receive more then 10% of the annual pay of the highest paid employee of any company in a one year period.
I only just now saw this... I was able to comfortably RETIRE at age 42 after I struck out on my own doing industrial process engineering consulting and gouging the piss out of my customers for my work.

To me, it was gouging but to them it was a hugely profitable investment. For the one-time payment they gave me, (Usually $50K on the low end) in 2-3 weeks I have tripled or better, their productivity and slashed their controllable costs in half. This lasts well beyond the fiscal year the investment is made, and they made back what they paid me in the first six months of operation after I was finished. I worked CHEAP compared to what they were able to rake in year after year after I was gone. I could have quadrupled what I charged, but wasn't greedy.

Under your idiotic proposal, my market would have been limited only to the bigger companies instead of the small to medium-sized ones I serviced. I probably would never have struck out on my own and if I had, surely would never have been able to retire at such a young age. I would probably still be working.

But, that's the idea right? Keep the smaller to medium-sized companies at a huge disadvantage against the giant corporate competition, and keep people unable to retire so they can work and pay vig to the G until they die.

Nice. Not.

There is no need to be nasty, 10% of a CEO making 1,000,000 a year would still have netted you 100k for what ever services you performed for them. The only difference is that the janitor would also be making 50k.

If they only want to pay him 20k then the CEO only gets 400k and you only get 40k, sorry :(
Total nonsense. Really.

It's clear you haven't given this much thought past, "It's not faiiiiiir some people make alot of monnnnnnney!!!! We need the govvvvvvvvveernment to control waaaaaaaages!"

Like a little 4 year old crying to mom in a store, railing about the injustice of not getting what it wants.
 
There is no need to be nasty, 10% of a CEO making 1,000,000 a year would still have netted you 100k for what ever services you performed for them. The only difference is that the janitor would also be making 50k.

If they only want to pay him 20k then the CEO only gets 400k and you only get 40k, sorry :(
They wouldn't HAVE janitors you fucking imbecile. You gonna have the G require janitors and other lower paid workers too?
 
I only just now saw this... I was able to comfortably RETIRE at age 42 after I struck out on my own doing industrial process engineering consulting and gouging the piss out of my customers for my work.

To me, it was gouging but to them it was a hugely profitable investment. For the one-time payment they gave me, (Usually $50K on the low end) in 2-3 weeks I have tripled or better, their productivity and slashed their controllable costs in half. This lasts well beyond the fiscal year the investment is made, and they made back what they paid me in the first six months of operation after I was finished. I worked CHEAP compared to what they were able to rake in year after year after I was gone. I could have quadrupled what I charged, but wasn't greedy.

Under your idiotic proposal, my market would have been limited only to the bigger companies instead of the small to medium-sized ones I serviced. I probably would never have struck out on my own and if I had, surely would never have been able to retire at such a young age. I would probably still be working.

But, that's the idea right? Keep the smaller to medium-sized companies at a huge disadvantage against the giant corporate competition, and keep people unable to retire so they can work and pay vig to the G until they die.

Nice. Not.

There is no need to be nasty, 10% of a CEO making 1,000,000 a year would still have netted you 100k for what ever services you performed for them. The only difference is that the janitor would also be making 50k.

If they only want to pay him 20k then the CEO only gets 400k and you only get 40k, sorry :(
Total nonsense. Really.

It's clear you haven't given this much thought past, "It's not faiiiiiir some people make alot of monnnnnnney!!!! We need the govvvvvvvvveernment to control waaaaaaaages!"

Like a little 4 year old crying to mom in a store, railing about the injustice of not getting what it wants.

How is it total nonsense? Was my math wrong?
 
There is no need to be nasty, 10% of a CEO making 1,000,000 a year would still have netted you 100k for what ever services you performed for them. The only difference is that the janitor would also be making 50k.

If they only want to pay him 20k then the CEO only gets 400k and you only get 40k, sorry :(
Total nonsense. Really.

It's clear you haven't given this much thought past, "It's not faiiiiiir some people make alot of monnnnnnney!!!! We need the govvvvvvvvveernment to control waaaaaaaages!"

Like a little 4 year old crying to mom in a store, railing about the injustice of not getting what it wants.

How is it total nonsense? Was my math wrong?
Answer MY questions first. It's interesting you are avoiding them:

WHO sets the bar? What qualifies them to do so? Then what stops them from moving the goalposts later?

You sure you want to set that precedent? For if you do, what's to stop the G from later saying 20x is too much, not fair, and make it 10? 5? 2? And finally 0?

Why do you want to give the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet still more power?
 
Also, I notice you completely ignored this earlier post:
Because I'm not going to take the risk required to keep my company afloat for the mere possibility that I can only make a maximum of $600,000 when I sell it nor will I pay the receptionist more than $30,000 per year since the value added to the company simply isn't worth more than that. Ergo, no receptionist and only highly paid decision makers will be in my employ and we'll all take turns answering the phone. It's inefficient, but at least I can cash out and retire when the time is right.

I'm curious about the limitation on consultants. What's wrong with a freelance computer programmer designing a system for $200 per hour if it increases my profit by $500 per hour? Are you saying that just should not be available? No high earning specialists who do very well and are efficient?
NO receptionists. NO janitors, no lower paid workers. I suppose those unemployed millions will all go on welfare under your system, just like the statists want. A much larger dependent class, guaranteeing they stay in power.
 
Total nonsense. Really.

It's clear you haven't given this much thought past, "It's not faiiiiiir some people make alot of monnnnnnney!!!! We need the govvvvvvvvveernment to control waaaaaaaages!"

Like a little 4 year old crying to mom in a store, railing about the injustice of not getting what it wants.

How is it total nonsense? Was my math wrong?
Answer MY questions first. It's interesting you are avoiding them:

WHO sets the bar? What qualifies them to do so? Then what stops them from moving the goalposts later?


You sure you want to set that precedent? For if you do, what's to stop the G from later saying 20x is too much, not fair, and make it 10? 5? 2? And finally 0?

Why do you want to give the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet still more power?

I didn't avoid it, I said that Slippery Slopes are pointless to address. You didn't like at answers and ignored it.

But if you insist, competition is important to growth so I felt that x20 the compensation of low skilled workers would be a fair compensation. On the other hand excessive compensation to the detriment of middle class viability is also bad for growth. I'm not a socialist. I am just considering anti-gluttony.
 

Forum List

Back
Top