Maximum Wage? Why not?

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

That's NOT the question I asked. You are avoiding the questions, most especially this one:

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

If there is a "slippery slope" it's because YOU created it, therefore it's on YOU to address it. You don't believe you need to address unintended consequences? You don't believe in defending your idiotic proposal?

I am just considering anti-gluttony.

WHO decides what is "gluttony" and what isn't? What qualifies them? What stops them from changing the definitions later?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You want a much more toweringly massive central government to control the entire economy and enforce "social justice."

That's a really OLD idea, and it's been tried. It's proven to be a FAILURE, everywhere and every time it's been tried.

There IS one thing you're correct about though. You are NO economist.

 

[xsited1]

You want a much more toweringly massive central government to control the entire economy and enforce "social justice."

That's a really OLD idea, and it's been tried. It's proven to be a FAILURE, everywhere and every time it's been tried.

There IS one thing you're correct about though. You are NO economist.

Hey, that's what I said! How about that!

 

[NoEconomist]

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.

That's NOT the question I asked. You are avoiding the questions, most especially this one:

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

If there is a "slippery slope" it's because YOU created it, therefore it's on YOU to address it. You don't believe you need to address unintended consequences? You don't believe in defending your idiotic proposal?

I am just considering anti-gluttony.

WHO decides what is "gluttony" and what isn't? What qualifies them? What stops them from changing the definitions later?

I don't believe I created a "Slippery Slope" I inquired about compensation limits in a one sided economy.

As for;

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

Its a loaded question, if you don't trust government then everything they do is going to be seen through that lens. Of course government is inefficient, they serve many different interests but someone has to keep order and it seems that economic order has been lost in the interest of those that only seek to server their own interests. It is fine for one to do well for themselves.

But how well and at the expense of who?

 

[asterism]

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.

You'd be surprised on all 3 points.

1. Incentive bonuses are common in the financial industry, however there are plenty of people just perfectly happy working 9-5 for the salary. They want stable income and plenty of time off.

2. Very few non-owners work 100 hours a week in my observation. Every business owner I know has done it at some point.

3. A maximum wage would not raise the pay of those making less than 1/20th of the owner, it would create a reason to not hire people with skills less valuable than 1/20th of the owner's compensation.

The top sales guy in a typical small medical devices wholesaler makes around $700K per year for bringing in $20 Million in revenue, $5 Million in gross profit. The teenager who picks up the trash in the parking lot does not provide anywhere near that level of value to the company.

 

[asterism]

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

If I have to pay a janitor $50,000 the year I sell my company for $1 Million I'll just clean the office myself. How is this arbitrary limit helping him?

 

[asterism]

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.

Everyone who has ever worked for me has had a job because I either didn't want to do it and could afford to hire them or because I could make more money for them using their skills than was possible for them by themselves.

Given the response of my employees when bonus checks were handed out last year suffice it to say that they want me to get filthy stinkin' rich.

 

[dilloduck]

because it's unconstitutional maybe ?

 

[Big Fitz]

Hello all

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...

Why not assign a single wage for ALL work? Everyone earns equally then. No matter how hard, how bad, how good, how lazy how effective, how destructive the employee is... they get the same pay. Janitor to doctor, executive to cashier.

How well do you think that will work out?

 

[NoEconomist]

Hello all

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...

Why not assign a single wage for ALL work? Everyone earns equally then. No matter how hard, how bad, how good, how lazy how effective, how destructive the employee is... they get the same pay. Janitor to doctor, executive to cashier.

How well do you think that will work out?

Well that would be communism, which wasn't what I was talking about.

 

[Toro]

Hello all

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...

Where have you read that FDR ended the Great Depression with a maximum wage? You should read more about the Great Depression because that is false.

The reason why there should be no maximum wage is because it discourages incentive and innovation. Economic growth is a function of productivity growth. Productivity growth occurs because of innovation. Thus, innovation drives the economy by lowering costs and increasing utility. If you cap pay, you are damaging the economy. People and capital will leave the country where they can make more money elsewhere.

 

[NoEconomist]

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.

You'd be surprised on all 3 points.

1. Incentive bonuses are common in the financial industry, however there are plenty of people just perfectly happy working 9-5 for the salary. They want stable income and plenty of time off.

2. Very few non-owners work 100 hours a week in my observation. Every business owner I know has done it at some point.

3. A maximum wage would not raise the pay of those making less than 1/20th of the owner, it would create a reason to not hire people with skills less valuable than 1/20th of the owner's compensation.

The top sales guy in a typical small medical devices wholesaler makes around $700K per year for bringing in $20 Million in revenue, $5 Million in gross profit. The teenager who picks up the trash in the parking lot does not provide anywhere near that level of value to the company.

1. I would say that there quite a few more people out there that BEG every week for overtime.

2. There are many salaried people out there that are worked a defacto 80 hour work week once their employer no longer needs to worry about overtime.

3. Define skill. Someone has to drive the trucks. Some one has to weld the I beam. Some one has to stand the night watch

 

[asterism]

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.

You'd be surprised on all 3 points.

1. Incentive bonuses are common in the financial industry, however there are plenty of people just perfectly happy working 9-5 for the salary. They want stable income and plenty of time off.

2. Very few non-owners work 100 hours a week in my observation. Every business owner I know has done it at some point.

3. A maximum wage would not raise the pay of those making less than 1/20th of the owner, it would create a reason to not hire people with skills less valuable than 1/20th of the owner's compensation.

The top sales guy in a typical small medical devices wholesaler makes around $700K per year for bringing in $20 Million in revenue, $5 Million in gross profit. The teenager who picks up the trash in the parking lot does not provide anywhere near that level of value to the company.

1. I would say that there quite a few more people out there that BEG every week for overtime.

You'd be wrong if you ever worked for any of my companies. I've always been able to find work for those willing to actually do it. I have had to lay off barely productive workers though.

2. There are many salaried people out there that are worked a defacto 80 hour work week once their employer no longer needs to worry about overtime.

And?

3. Define skill. Someone has to drive the trucks. Some one has to weld the I beam. Some one has to stand the night watch

Yep, and they should be paid according to the value those functions bring into the company balanced with the pay people are willing to accept, not some arbitrary control.

 

[Wiseacre]

A maximum wage limit? Barack, is this you? Just can't stand those rich people, can you? When oh when are you liberals going to stop obsessing over the haves? Don't be surprised when all the smart innovative people leave the US to make their fortunes elsewhere. Here's a projection: the standard of living around here will not be improved if such a hairbrained scheme ever comes to fruition.

 

[GHook93]

It always soundsd tempting in theory, just like every liberal idea, but "let's make a Maximum Wage" would be so counter productive it would be too harmful to any country. I guarantee the wage would make many of the successful corporation move their executive operations move seas, to Mexico or to Canada. Believe it or not the top 1% pays 50% of the Federal budget. What if America lost 90% of the 1%, who pays America's bills at that point? Not a good idea.

What would that wage be? I mean liberals like Obama think $250K a year makes you rich. I say it makes you well off, but not rich. I could hear the caps at $5 mil call. If I was to even entertain an idea I would say the cap would be $100 mil and it would be progressive. Meaning, every cent made under $100 mill (99,999,999.99) gets taxed at the regular rate. Every cent over that gets taxed at 90%!

How would it be enforced? Tax people at 100% if they make a certain dollar amount. How does one see it not a huge injustice to take a man's full income if he makes says $10 mil a year? It reminds me of people that are dirt poor and win the lottery. At that point they have a huge issue with the government STEALING 45% of the "riches" winnings.

What do you do with the small businesses and more importantly S-Corps? The biggest issue I have with raising taxes on people who make $250K-$1 mil, is you will be hitting a lot of SUCCESSFUL small business owners and S-Corps (Employers of 60% of Americans). Both are subject to the income tax, unlike the C-Corps. Therefore reducing their bottomline force them to make cuts in other places - mainly the staff. You would be surprising the large companies that are LLCs and S-Corps.

Lastly, how does the liberal mind think that capping what your boss will make equates to more money that you the employee will make? I mean, an employer whose company makes $5 mil, but through the max inome only get $1 mil, will then turn around and give more money to the employees? And how do they think this won't stiffle innovation. I mean if I am a small business owner who can increase innovation to get my personal income to Say $10 million, but the cap is at $5 mil, what incentive is there to increase innovation? Not much!

Hello all

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...

 

[Mr Natural]

As I recall from econ 101, price floors cause surpluses and price ceilings cause shortages.

Or something like that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Hello all

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...

Why not assign a single wage for ALL work? Everyone earns equally then. No matter how hard, how bad, how good, how lazy how effective, how destructive the employee is... they get the same pay. Janitor to doctor, executive to cashier.

How well do you think that will work out?

Well that would be communism, which wasn't what I was talking about.

The hell you aren't. You're talking government mandated paygrades. The instant you take the wage someone can make or pay their employee out of their hands and setting it by statute... it's communism.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A maximum wage limit? Barack, is this you? Just can't stand those rich people, can you? When oh when are you liberals going to stop obsessing over the haves? Don't be surprised when all the smart innovative people leave the US to make their fortunes elsewhere. Here's a projection: the standard of living around here will not be improved if such a hairbrained scheme ever comes to fruition.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GWuNcN-UZs&feature=related]YouTube - Obama "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money"[/ame]

 

[NoEconomist]

Hello all

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...

Where have you read that FDR ended the Great Depression with a maximum wage? You should read more about the Great Depression because that is false.

The reason why there should be no maximum wage is because it discourages incentive and innovation. Economic growth is a function of productivity growth. Productivity growth occurs because of innovation. Thus, innovation drives the economy by lowering costs and increasing utility. If you cap pay, you are damaging the economy. People and capital will leave the country where they can make more money elsewhere.

Thanks,

The FDR thing was something someone told me so I thought I would look into it more and this was one of the ways I thought I would get a cross section on that line of thought. I did some more looking and he only held hearings on the prospect.

Some of you have been helpful so thanks to you, the rest....well you have mostly been obnoxious.