9 out of 10 Americans completely wrong

[rightwinger]

Just because you didn't put forth the effort, doesn't mean you should be entitled to the wealth of those who did.

Why do we continue programs that allow the super wealthy not to have to put forth the same effort?

Besides a college education, what programs are you referring to?

Tax subsidies
Government incentives
Capital gains
Government R&D subsidies

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the infinite time horizon, that's true. We don't live forever though.

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

The answer to both questions is no, but that doesn't mean there isn't a "pie". Sometimes wealth is being increased by enlarging the "pie". However, the size of the "pie" is relatively fixed at any given point of time (at nothing else by resource constraints).

So it's like a Heisenberg uncertainty pie. You can either know it's size or if it's expanding but not both simultaneously

Or maybe Schrodinger's pie. You can assume the pie is finite and expanding at the same time until you open the box.

Like I said there is no pie.

 

[RKMBrown]

If the labor of the veteran employee is 10 times more valuable than the apprentice, but he's being paid 30 times more, there is something askew about that.

QFT... FYI no business is as corrupt when it comes to pay as a tenure based government job. I considered teaching once... I have decades of experience teaching to employees (Engineers) and customers. If I go to a private school my experience will be counted in the offer for employment. However, if I go to a "public" school the pay offers are as if I'm a fresh-out.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

In the infinite time horizon, that's true. We don't live forever though.

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

Overall wealth is infinite..

A corporations income for any given year is finite. How that income is divided between investors, CEOs, top management and workers is what is up for discussion

Everyone in that food chain is doing well except for the workers

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Which is asinine, because there is no way your labor is 1000x value-added.

What is asinine is the initial question she asked.

If you take my experience and what I can bring to the table vs a newbie to the industry then yes, my value is far greater.

Do you honestly think an apprentice should be paid the same as a 30 year veteran?

Now don't run off after I kick your ass like you did the last time.

I haven't "r[a]n off" at any point (you also haven't "kick[ed] [my] ass").

To answer your question, even though it's built on a false premise: no, an apprentice should not be paid the same as a veteran employee with more training and experience. The issue being discussed is the pay differential. If the labor of the veteran employee is 10 times more valuable than the apprentice, but he's being paid 30 times more, there is something askew about that.

It's not a false premise.

Scenarios like that are quite common.

Talk about false premises.

Who are you to judge the value of experience or the price paid for that experience?

My salary is based on a contract I made with my employer, if he didn't think my experience was 10 times more valuable and opted to pay me 30 times more than an apprentice he wouldn't have employed me.

Fact is, you are not the one to set the standard or to say what standard is acceptable. That choice is exclusively between the employer and employee.

Sucks to be you huh!

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the infinite time horizon, that's true. We don't live forever though.

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

Overall wealth is infinite..

A corporations income for any given year is finite. How that income is divided between investors, CEOs, top management and workers is what is up for discussion

Everyone in that food chain is doing well except for the workers

No the issue here is you people saying that if someone else makes more you must not be able to make more.

There is no one, no cabal, no corporation stopping you from earning more and increasing your wealth. Period.

Period.

 

[Polk]

In the infinite time horizon, that's true. We don't live forever though.

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

Overall wealth is infinite..

A corporations income for any given year is finite. How that income is divided between investors, CEOs, top management and workers is what is up for discussion

Everyone in that food chain is doing well except for the workers

Even overall wealth is finite in a (relatively) fixed time frame.

 

[Sallow]

First off..I think we are mostly in agreement about the role of government. Secondly, no where did I post the government should "force" companies to do anything. Changes to the way profit is "divided" could be as easy as changing the tax code. Wanna pay yourself 1000xs what everyone else makes? Fine. Then you get taxed at a 90% rate. That worked during the time of Eisenhower.

Only 352 individuals who filed their income taxes in 1954 paid a rate of 90%. Yeah, it worked just fine because a ton of wealthy individuals got to avoid a ton of income taxes.

It's not an exaggeration to say that I would prefer the 1950's tax code over the current one any-day.

And?

Wages were going up for the middle class from about the 50s to about the 80s.

Why?

Because instead paying themselves fat paychecks, with the possibility of giving a good amount of that to the government, and with strong UNIONS looming, the best possible solution was to pay the people working for you..a decent wage.

Simple as that.

 

[Polk]

What is asinine is the initial question she asked.

If you take my experience and what I can bring to the table vs a newbie to the industry then yes, my value is far greater.

Do you honestly think an apprentice should be paid the same as a 30 year veteran?

Now don't run off after I kick your ass like you did the last time.

I haven't "r[a]n off" at any point (you also haven't "kick[ed] [my] ass").

To answer your question, even though it's built on a false premise: no, an apprentice should not be paid the same as a veteran employee with more training and experience. The issue being discussed is the pay differential. If the labor of the veteran employee is 10 times more valuable than the apprentice, but he's being paid 30 times more, there is something askew about that.

It's not a false premise.

Scenarios like that are quite common.

Talk about false premises.

Who are you to judge the value of experience or the price paid for that experience?

My salary is based on a contract I made with my employer, if he didn't think my experience was 10 times more valuable and opted to pay me 30 times more than an apprentice he wouldn't have employed me.

Fact is, you are not the one to set the standard or to say what standard is acceptable. That choice is exclusively between the employer and employee.

Sucks to be you huh!

It's an absolutely false premise. I've never stated that people should be paid the same amount regardless of experience.

Placing a value on your experience is not a value judgment. It's an economic measure. You're producing some definable output for your employer than has an economic value.

 

[Polk]

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

Overall wealth is infinite..

A corporations income for any given year is finite. How that income is divided between investors, CEOs, top management and workers is what is up for discussion

Everyone in that food chain is doing well except for the workers

No the issue here is you people saying that if someone else makes more you must not be able to make more.

There is no one, no cabal, no corporation stopping you from earning more and increasing your wealth. Period.

Period.

No one is saying there is some scheme out there conspiring against individuals. The question is about the rules of the game.

 

[Sallow]

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

Overall wealth is infinite..

A corporations income for any given year is finite. How that income is divided between investors, CEOs, top management and workers is what is up for discussion

Everyone in that food chain is doing well except for the workers

No the issue here is you people saying that if someone else makes more you must not be able to make more.

There is no one, no cabal, no corporation stopping you from earning more and increasing your wealth. Period.

Period.

Sure there are.

I mean..what the heck do you think Citizen's United was all about.

Access.

Access to legislators.

Trying opening up a fruit stand in front of a brick and mortar super market.

See how that works out.

 

[numan]

The United States will eventually look like Argentina, if it doesn't become Yugoslavia first.

So true -- and not far off.

"Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto"

Polk, even if you translated this into English, most of the unfeeling human trash on this thread still would not understand it.
.

 

[RKMBrown]

What is asinine is the initial question she asked.

If you take my experience and what I can bring to the table vs a newbie to the industry then yes, my value is far greater.

Do you honestly think an apprentice should be paid the same as a 30 year veteran?

Now don't run off after I kick your ass like you did the last time.

I haven't "r[a]n off" at any point (you also haven't "kick[ed] [my] ass").

To answer your question, even though it's built on a false premise: no, an apprentice should not be paid the same as a veteran employee with more training and experience. The issue being discussed is the pay differential. If the labor of the veteran employee is 10 times more valuable than the apprentice, but he's being paid 30 times more, there is something askew about that.

It's not a false premise.

Scenarios like that are quite common.

Talk about false premises.

Who are you to judge the value of experience or the price paid for that experience?

My salary is based on a contract I made with my employer, if he didn't think my experience was 10 times more valuable and opted to pay me 30 times more than an apprentice he wouldn't have employed me.

Fact is, you are not the one to set the standard or to say what standard is acceptable. That choice is exclusively between the employer and employee.

Sucks to be you huh!

I think you are being a bit over jealous in your view of what the word askew means.

You agree that your pay is askew due to superior experience and skill but you deride him for saying it? I think you guys may be in "violent agreement."

 

[Skull Pilot]

Overall wealth is infinite..

A corporations income for any given year is finite. How that income is divided between investors, CEOs, top management and workers is what is up for discussion

Everyone in that food chain is doing well except for the workers

No the issue here is you people saying that if someone else makes more you must not be able to make more.

There is no one, no cabal, no corporation stopping you from earning more and increasing your wealth. Period.

Period.

No one is saying there is some scheme out there conspiring against individuals. The question is about the rules of the game.

Oh cue the violins for the chorus of, "It's not fair"

No one is stopping any of you from making more, saving more or increasing your wealth.

 

[numan]

The only way to be a Texan, is to be born a Texan.

Thank Goodness!!

That means that we can put a razor-wire fence around the place and keep the disease from spreading.
.

 

[Polk]

No the issue here is you people saying that if someone else makes more you must not be able to make more.

There is no one, no cabal, no corporation stopping you from earning more and increasing your wealth. Period.

Period.

No one is saying there is some scheme out there conspiring against individuals. The question is about the rules of the game.

Oh cue the violins for the chorus of, "It's not fair"

No one is stopping any of you from making more, saving more or increasing your wealth.

I have a pretty successful career. This isn't a "woe is me" story.

 

[AmazonTania]

And?

Wages were going up for the middle class from about the 50s to about the 80s.

Wages are still going up, and have been going up past the 80's. Sorry, but you are making things up.

Why?

Because instead paying themselves fat paychecks, with the possibility of giving a good amount of that to the government, and with strong UNIONS looming, the best possible solution was to pay the people working for you..a decent wage.

Simple as that.

So you acknowledge that the ability for fat cats to avoid taxes leads to employees earning more.

Good to know. Thought there was no hope for this forum.

 

[Polk]

Why do we continue programs that allow the super wealthy not to have to put forth the same effort?

Besides a college education, what programs are you referring to?

Tax subsidies
Government incentives
Capital gains
Government R&D subsidies

There are economic and/or policy arguments to be made for several of those, but you're right that the moral argument is pretty weak.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one is saying there is some scheme out there conspiring against individuals. The question is about the rules of the game.

Oh cue the violins for the chorus of, "It's not fair"

No one is stopping any of you from making more, saving more or increasing your wealth.

I have a pretty successful career. This isn't a "woe is me" story.

Sorry but when I hear the same old hackneyed blame the "rich" the corporations, the CEOs blah blah blah it all sounds like whining to me.

Yeah life's not fair. It never was. It never will be. It's not supposed to be.

But at the same time anyone can improve their situation if they have the desire and act upon it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I haven't "r[a]n off" at any point (you also haven't "kick[ed] [my] ass").

To answer your question, even though it's built on a false premise: no, an apprentice should not be paid the same as a veteran employee with more training and experience. The issue being discussed is the pay differential. If the labor of the veteran employee is 10 times more valuable than the apprentice, but he's being paid 30 times more, there is something askew about that.

It's not a false premise.

Scenarios like that are quite common.

Talk about false premises.

Who are you to judge the value of experience or the price paid for that experience?

My salary is based on a contract I made with my employer, if he didn't think my experience was 10 times more valuable and opted to pay me 30 times more than an apprentice he wouldn't have employed me.

Fact is, you are not the one to set the standard or to say what standard is acceptable. That choice is exclusively between the employer and employee.

Sucks to be you huh!

It's an absolutely false premise. I've never stated that people should be paid the same amount regardless of experience.

Placing a value on your experience is not a value judgment. It's an economic measure. You're producing some definable output for your employer than has an economic value.

What exactly gives you the authority to say what that value is?