Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"not solving wealth inequality,"
Ah..so thats your angle huh? What you are proposing doesnt solve wealth inequality. Only knowledge, resources, opportunity, ability can do that.
No, you have not solved the wealth inequality problem with only a maximum wage, not necessarily. It's very possible that only 1 percent will be able to earn close to the maximum of $100 per day if such a maximum is set. If there is no minimum (other than the natural minimum of zero), then the average wage set by the market may be $1.00 per day. As such, 320 may only be able to earn $5.00 per day as a management consultant yet still be considered upper middle class to wealthy.Would there also be a minimum pay per day? If solving wealth inequality is the issue,then there needs to be a minimum pay ear day greater than zero. We don't want those that are disabled to starve to death.
Well no, read the OP... The new federal law doesn't mandate a minimum pay, just a maximum amount you can earn per day of $100. If you don't want to work you can depend on benevolence from others, that's up to you. We've not really discussed taxation and how we would pay for running government and providing social entitlement programs or disability. Perhaps we'll have a consumption tax?
An 8-hour day at $100 comes to $12.50 per hour. Obviously, certain jobs would be of greater value than $12.50 per hour so you'd work less hours depending on competition for those jobs. The time you worked per day or how many days per week would become the driver as opposed to amount per hour as it is now. Maybe there is an easy job that lots of people can do and some will say... I'll work 10 hours at $10 per hour instead of 8 at $12.50.
We obviously can't pay people to do nothing, no one wants to do that. Would you like to pay me to do nothing? If so, I'll gladly send you my Paypal information through PM. Paying people for doing nothing is not solving wealth inequality, it's simply paying people to do nothing. This plan pays everyone $100 per day maximum. You can make up to $700 per week and your hours per day and days per week are what is negotiable depending on what you'll do and the market for your particular service. As you can see. if everyone is capped at $700 maximum, we have no inequality in wealth, the problem is solved. This is why the fictional future government passed this law.
So we've solved the inequality in wealth problem but now we seem to be running into some problems with people being motivated to actually do productive work that needs doing. We've had only one person in the thread who stated he is willing to work 16 hrs per day to do whatever needs to be done. Now if we just had about 149,999,999 more people that committed, we would have something going on. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to want to work for $6.25 per hour and 112 hours per week.
There are several other questions you missed if youre talking about solving wealth inequality. What you are doing for that money is the least important. What you are doing with that money is the most important. Are you buying Iphones and new cars every year or are you saving it to invest and increase your wealth? See? So even if everyone were paid the same amount not everyone will have the same networth, social standing, access to information that will increase their wealth, etc etc etc."not solving wealth inequality,"
Ah..so thats your angle huh? What you are proposing doesnt solve wealth inequality. Only knowledge, resources, opportunity, ability can do that.
Sure it does. No one will be making any more than anyone else unless they voluntarily work fewer days per week. We'll all be making the same $100 per day. The only question is what we will be doing for our $100.
And let me make something perfectly clear here, I am not "proposing" anything. I'm simply presenting a hypothetical thought experiment where "wealth inequality" is solved by law. As the OP states, there is no right or wrong answer, it's simply a means to open a dialogue on the issue of wealth disparity.
As we see, the problem will be, how does society deal with things that society will need that people aren't really willing to do. I don't see any volunteers (except one) to dig ditches or load trucks. Most wouldn't care to do that for 8 hrs. a day while someone else taught computer classes for 4 hours a day. Right out of the box, we see that government would have to step in and mandate who is going to do the less desirable jobs. Otherwise, no one is going to be willing to do those and civilization breaks down.
There are several other questions you missed if youre talking about solving wealth inequality. What you are doing for that money is the least important. What you are doing with that money is the most important. Are you buying Iphones and new cars every year or are you saving it to invest and increase your wealth? See? So even if everyone were paid the same amount not everyone will have the same networth, social standing, access to information that will increase their wealth, etc etc etc.
Youre working with a small sample size here on this forum. Not everyone wants to dig ditches. Some people do.
No, you have not solved the wealth inequality problem with only a maximum wage, not necessarily. It's very possible that only 1 percent will be able to earn close to the maximum of $100 per day if such a maximum is set. If there is no minimum (other than the natural minimum of zero), then the average wage set by the market may be $1.00 per day. As such, 320 may only be able to earn $5.00 per day as a management consultant yet still be considered upper middle class to wealthy.
The opportunity for wealth inequality is a good thing. I earn a decent living, but I could probably earn much much more if chasing wealth were my primary goal in life. It doesn't bother me that Mr. And Mrs. Jones have more toys than I have.There are several other questions you missed if youre talking about solving wealth inequality. What you are doing for that money is the least important. What you are doing with that money is the most important. Are you buying Iphones and new cars every year or are you saving it to invest and increase your wealth? See? So even if everyone were paid the same amount not everyone will have the same networth, social standing, access to information that will increase their wealth, etc etc etc.
Youre working with a small sample size here on this forum. Not everyone wants to dig ditches. Some people do.
Other than possibly controlling people's minds, there is no way to regulate what people do with their wealth. Yes, some people will blow their wealth on lotto tickets and some will save and invest in their future. But you no longer have the problem we hear the progressives complain about where corporate CEOs make millions per year while others work for slave wages. Everyone earns relatively the same amount of income... from burger flippers to doctors.
And congratulations, you are figuring out that "wealth inequality" is not a problem we can really solve. Even when we try and control all the parameters and make things as fair as possible for everyone, our efforts would be wrought with problems.... and we still would not solve wealth inequality in the end.
Wealth inequality is a general term not a specific term. Its used as a measurement of a groups total wealth average. Due to the history of the US one group has most of the wealth, resources, and knowledge on how to grow and maintain that wealth. If everything was evened out the wealth inequality between the groups would go away like I said with opportunity, knowledge and resources. All groups would have roughly the same amount of poor, middle income, and wealthy. So I disagree its a problem we cant solve. What I do agree on is not everyone will be wealthy even in this scenario you made up.There are several other questions you missed if youre talking about solving wealth inequality. What you are doing for that money is the least important. What you are doing with that money is the most important. Are you buying Iphones and new cars every year or are you saving it to invest and increase your wealth? See? So even if everyone were paid the same amount not everyone will have the same networth, social standing, access to information that will increase their wealth, etc etc etc.
Youre working with a small sample size here on this forum. Not everyone wants to dig ditches. Some people do.
Other than possibly controlling people's minds, there is no way to regulate what people do with their wealth. Yes, some people will blow their wealth on lotto tickets and some will save and invest in their future. But you no longer have the problem we hear the progressives complain about where corporate CEOs make millions per year while others work for slave wages. Everyone earns relatively the same amount of income... from burger flippers to doctors.
And congratulations, you are figuring out that "wealth inequality" is not a problem we can really solve. Even when we try and control all the parameters and make things as fair as possible for everyone, our efforts would be wrought with problems.... and we still would not solve wealth inequality in the end.
and lack of knowledge, opportunity, resources, etcNo, you have not solved the wealth inequality problem with only a maximum wage, not necessarily. It's very possible that only 1 percent will be able to earn close to the maximum of $100 per day if such a maximum is set. If there is no minimum (other than the natural minimum of zero), then the average wage set by the market may be $1.00 per day. As such, 320 may only be able to earn $5.00 per day as a management consultant yet still be considered upper middle class to wealthy.
What you seem to be saying here is that "wealth inequality" is a matter of personal choices.
Yes and no. Having a max wage of $100 a day and a zero a day minimum would have a tremendous deflationary effect on the dollar. There would still be "a market" that influences prices just as our prices are still influenced by the market while we have a minimum wage. If the maximum wage of $100 per day is artificially set, the the market may respond by moving the wage of a McDonald's hamburger flipper to 5 cents per hour (less than a dollar per day).No, you have not solved the wealth inequality problem with only a maximum wage, not necessarily. It's very possible that only 1 percent will be able to earn close to the maximum of $100 per day if such a maximum is set. If there is no minimum (other than the natural minimum of zero), then the average wage set by the market may be $1.00 per day. As such, 320 may only be able to earn $5.00 per day as a management consultant yet still be considered upper middle class to wealthy.
What you seem to be saying here is that "wealth inequality" is a matter of personal choices.
Wealth inequality is a general term not a specific term. Its used as a measurement of a groups total wealth average. Due to the history of the US one group has most of the wealth, resources, and knowledge on how to grow and maintain that wealth. If everything was evened out the wealth inequality between the groups would go away like I said with opportunity, knowledge and resources. All groups would have roughly the same amount of poor, middle income, and wealthy. So I disagree its a problem we cant solve. What I do agree on is not everyone will be wealthy even in this scenario you made up.There are several other questions you missed if youre talking about solving wealth inequality. What you are doing for that money is the least important. What you are doing with that money is the most important. Are you buying Iphones and new cars every year or are you saving it to invest and increase your wealth? See? So even if everyone were paid the same amount not everyone will have the same networth, social standing, access to information that will increase their wealth, etc etc etc.
Youre working with a small sample size here on this forum. Not everyone wants to dig ditches. Some people do.
Other than possibly controlling people's minds, there is no way to regulate what people do with their wealth. Yes, some people will blow their wealth on lotto tickets and some will save and invest in their future. But you no longer have the problem we hear the progressives complain about where corporate CEOs make millions per year while others work for slave wages. Everyone earns relatively the same amount of income... from burger flippers to doctors.
And congratulations, you are figuring out that "wealth inequality" is not a problem we can really solve. Even when we try and control all the parameters and make things as fair as possible for everyone, our efforts would be wrought with problems.... and we still would not solve wealth inequality in the end.
Thats fine. The point is as i said before. Everyone would have the opportunity if everyone equally owned the resources and knowledge. Those with personal drive to build wealth would slowly rise to the top irregardless of race. The others at that point would have no excuse. They had the knowledge, opportunity, and the resources. Their own inability to execute would be obviously their fault.Wealth inequality is a general term not a specific term. Its used as a measurement of a groups total wealth average. Due to the history of the US one group has most of the wealth, resources, and knowledge on how to grow and maintain that wealth. If everything was evened out the wealth inequality between the groups would go away like I said with opportunity, knowledge and resources. All groups would have roughly the same amount of poor, middle income, and wealthy. So I disagree its a problem we cant solve. What I do agree on is not everyone will be wealthy even in this scenario you made up.There are several other questions you missed if youre talking about solving wealth inequality. What you are doing for that money is the least important. What you are doing with that money is the most important. Are you buying Iphones and new cars every year or are you saving it to invest and increase your wealth? See? So even if everyone were paid the same amount not everyone will have the same networth, social standing, access to information that will increase their wealth, etc etc etc.
Youre working with a small sample size here on this forum. Not everyone wants to dig ditches. Some people do.
Other than possibly controlling people's minds, there is no way to regulate what people do with their wealth. Yes, some people will blow their wealth on lotto tickets and some will save and invest in their future. But you no longer have the problem we hear the progressives complain about where corporate CEOs make millions per year while others work for slave wages. Everyone earns relatively the same amount of income... from burger flippers to doctors.
And congratulations, you are figuring out that "wealth inequality" is not a problem we can really solve. Even when we try and control all the parameters and make things as fair as possible for everyone, our efforts would be wrought with problems.... and we still would not solve wealth inequality in the end.
Some people will always have more wealth, resources and knowledge, regardless of how you attempt to make things even. You admitted this yourself when you pointed out that some people would blow their wealth and others would invest and save. No matter what we did to "even things out" they would eventually be right back where they are because people are people. All the wealth would eventually be right back at the top again, with the people who are good at growing their wealth. We all have the same opportunities and access to knowledge and resources, there is no group being deprived of these things. What we have are different kinds of people, some who are motivated to take advantage of opportunities, gain knowledge and use resources wisely... others who are not.
For the sake of argument, let's take the OP scenario a step further and say that Congress agrees with your position and before this new law goes into effect, they confiscate all the wealth assets in the country and redistribute it equally to each person, so we all have the exact same amount to start and we will all be making relatively the same incomes. Within a certain amount of time, the people who were smart with their money and did smart things with their money, worked hard and saved or invested... would eventually accumulate more wealth than others. While some would be lazy and less productive or motivated, more foolish and careless with their money... and eventually, would have none. So now.... What we would have to do is, every so many years, confiscate everyone's wealth assets and again, redistribute them to make everything even once more.
Now... for bonus points.... can you figure out what the problem would be with doing that?
Yes and no. Having a max wage of $100 a day and a zero a day minimum would have a tremendous deflationary effect on the dollar. There would still be "a market" that influences prices just as our prices are still influenced by the market while we have a minimum wage. If the maximum wage of $100 per day is artificially set, the the market may respond by moving the wage of a McDonalds hamburger flipper too 5 cents per hour (less than a dollar per day).
Thats fine. The point is as i said before. Everyone would have the opportunity if everyone equally owned the resources and knowledge. Those with personal drive to build wealth would slowly rise to the top irregardless of race. The others at that point would have no excuse. They had the knowledge, opportunity, and the resources. Their own inability to execute would be obviously their fault.
I dont need any points. There would be no legitimate problem with doing that.
It's interesting to watch all the scrambling trying to get more - what a bunch of greedy people!
I work about 14 hours a day - and I would still work about 14 hours a day. (Oh, by the way, I'm on my 3rd retirement) But, that's because I work for the joy of producing something, for the good that I do for others, and the value I bring to my wife and children.
Frankly, I'd work 14 hours a day for nothing - if that's what it took.My reward isn't measured in dollars.
Actually you have unwittingly provided a great solution. You get bonus points for that. That was an excellent suggestion. We could reset the system every 20 years. for say a century. That way people could prepare for each reset and learn via reinforcement the way to break out of cycles of poverty. That would educate the maximum amount of people and those people could teach their kids how to prepare.Thats fine. The point is as i said before. Everyone would have the opportunity if everyone equally owned the resources and knowledge. Those with personal drive to build wealth would slowly rise to the top irregardless of race. The others at that point would have no excuse. They had the knowledge, opportunity, and the resources. Their own inability to execute would be obviously their fault.
I dont need any points. There would be no legitimate problem with doing that.
Again, you would have to reset the system every so many years... perhaps once every generation? Otherwise, you end up right back where we are now. Even if everyone equally owned the resources, knowledge is an individual attribute you cannot control. Some will always be smarter than others. After just Day One, the resource ownership would no longer be equal. As time went by, those who are smarter would gain more of the resources. We know this because that's what happens now.
So... The reason I offered you bonus points to posit what might happen with a system which routinely confiscated all wealth assets and redistributed them, is because I wanted you to think about that for a minute. Imagine yourself as a person who has worked hard his whole life to build up wealth and have more than others... I know you said this wasn't important to you, but indulge me... pretend that is what you did and now you have accumulated all this wealth. What was the point of it all if you know that it is going to simply be taken away and redistributed? Wouldn't you have been better off to work as little as possible, not really care how you spent or if you saved for the future? The smart person in such a scheme would do as little as possible, put in the least effort... eventually gaining a windfall whenever redistribution occurs. Do you see a problem with a society where everyone is motivated to do as little as possible?
No, I am not hung up on a minimum other that stating that the fictional. Universe you created has a minimum of zero. You answered my question about a minimum several posts ago.Yes and no. Having a max wage of $100 a day and a zero a day minimum would have a tremendous deflationary effect on the dollar. There would still be "a market" that influences prices just as our prices are still influenced by the market while we have a minimum wage. If the maximum wage of $100 per day is artificially set, the the market may respond by moving the wage of a McDonalds hamburger flipper too 5 cents per hour (less than a dollar per day).
Yes, of course the dollar would be deflated because you wouldn't have people making millions of dollars per year anymore. The maximum income would be $36,400 per year. I don't know how much a burger flipper would make, that would depend on the market.
You seem to not be comprehending that there is no universe where people are paid to do nothing. You keep talking about a "guaranteed minimum" as if we're going to pay people regardless of whether or not they work. You have to work to earn income. No one is willing to pay anyone to do nothing. The OP scenario is an attempt to keep anyone from earning exorbitantly more than others. But kudos to you for figuring out that limiting the amount of maximum income a person can earn will dramatically effect the value of a dollar and the market will simply adjust to compensate.
This is the beginning of understanding why this "wage inequality" thing is something built in to the system and we can't really fix that because the market will always adjust. In the end, you will still have wage inequality, there is nothing you can do about that. It is part of a free market capitalist system. You can certainly try and destroy free market capitalism, as the OP attempts to illustrate, but what happens then is, the ruling class obtain all the wealth assets and the non-ruling class work for $1 a day.
I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.
The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:
It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?
For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.
GO!!
Holy shit. Nobody believes you and nobody cares.
