Posted on 01/22/2002 3:18:18 PM PST by parsifal
Recently I have been involved in several threads dealing with minimum wages, fair wages, and taxes on the wealthy. Somehow, even though I am pretty "conservative", I manage to be on the opposite side of most freepers on these issues.
So, for fun, and for a view of the "other" side, I present some links to the AFLCIO website.
Calculate your pay if your were a CEO
There are other fun things on the site. Browse around here and play the "Greed" game:
And if you are interested in "living wages" and have some questions:
He needs a new accountant. His gross is 140K and he pays 60K in taxes? Good grief. I assume he rolls his own 1040 weed.
patent
Don't believe the hype. When a muli-million dollar company and all it's stockholders look to you as the one person to sink or swim the entire company, you don't sleep. Either you are the man that got the company to the top, or you are the one person that destroyed the entire company.
You may picture CEO's out on golf courses, but if you want to picture the truth, picture them with 2 hours of sleep at 3 in the morning running over some statements having spent about a total of 5 hours with his/her family in the last week.
My dad and a friend started working for the same company at roughly the same time. The friend has progressed much, much further.
He also had to move his family every two years. And was rarely home for football games, birthdays, anniversaries.
Maybe there are CEO's who spend a ton of time on the golf course. But I'm willing to bet they practically lived at the office during the years that preceeded their appt as CEO.
I would have no choice but to call this an impossible task because of the fact that even you characterize this as a "livable fair wage." You see, once you introduce the term "fair" as an objective, I cannot calculate this without being un"fair" to someone for the reasons previously given.
Oh, I know, just remove "fairness" as an objective. That has been one of my principle points. You may argue for the "living wage" a number of ways, but you cannot argue that that it is an attempt at fairness.
Are you sure about this? Are you saying that no one at the "bottom" is productive or worth what you wish they were paid? If so, then you have made work at that level a form of welfare.
"True. That is why I want to keep gov't out of the upper part of the pyramid until the "rich rich" level. BUT, a society can determine (fairly reasonably) the minimum COST of an employee. Get it? Not VALUE, but COST."
A couple of points. What is "rich rich level"? At what point do you think government should set wages? If the "rich rich" are the top 5%, then you've really set no limit, have you? Second, you make the common mistake of failing to remember that the value of the employee must exceed the cost of the employee. Otherwise, you've only created a form of welfare where the government mandates that companies hire a certain number of employees and pay them, not wages, but welfare. I must point out again that this is the "third way" where government mandates make companies servants of the state.
"No, society will price certain EMPLOYERS out of the employment market. Employers who do not price their goods high enough to pay their costs will have to go bye-bye. This is a good thing."
Again, two points. First, when you price an employer out of the market you have priced the employees out of the market as well. Second, forcing employers to raise the costs of their goods affect those at the bottom of the income scale more harshly than those higher up the scale. This is an "unintended consequence" that can result in much more harm than benefits. One is reminded at this point of the "luxury tax" leveled on yachts that resulted in many employees losing their jobs.
"The other businesses in that industry who are likely more efficient or more intelligent, will not have to compete with looting goobers who do not even pay their employees enough to live."
One is remind of Hillary during the health care debacle claiming that she "could not be concerned with every underfunded corporation". These underfunded businesses might be the source of jobs for many, but there's no reason to be concerned for them losing their jobs, right? This is a common argument of many liberals who attempt to blame the consequences of their well intentioned schemes on others who are "inefficient, dumb, or looting goobers". Isn't it interesting that these claims are most often made by those who've never had to make payroll?
"And as a side note, my experience is that most employers do not know how to value their employees, or even gauge their productivity. They haven't got a clue. It is hard to do, and the result you get can be questionable. Certain jobs are more easily amenable to analysis than others {egs. sales, certain professions) but the average monkey who owns a business or manages one doesn't even try."
Wonderfull, an employer can't determine the value of an employee but, somehow, the government can? Get real. Employers must know the value of their employers or they will go broke. That is a powerful incentive is it not? Now, where is the corresponding incentive that applies to government?
If it is not a right then their is no obligation for the employer to pay that wage. This is an important point, rights and obligations are mirror images of the other. If there is no right, then their is no obligation.
"The same way that mandantory auto insurance is an "obligation"."
Nice try, but no points. Rights and the obligation to respect those rights exist independent of law. You cannot create rights through legislation. Read the founding documents of this country. They clearly stated that the rights they upheld existed prior to the documents.
"I really think that you are trying to force my arguments into some sort of Marxist mold so you won't have to really address them. It won't work."
If I've failed to address any point you find important then please point these points out. I have pointed out the Marxist origin of many of your arguments and I point out you have not objected that this is not the source. I have also pointed out that many of your solutions have their origin in the "third way" logic of national socialism too. Doesn't this bother you? Or are you convinced that one can be just a little "socialist"? But, once again, I must point out that regardless of what type of label you're trying to paint yourself with, I have addressed your points.
If you really belive this, then you should demand lower taxes. Why? Because the doctor could then charge lower fees while providing the same level of services to his patients. Now, wouldn't that be a wonderful way of reducing the cost of health care, particularly for those at the bottom of the income scale.
Probably? And, what do you think about "comparable worth" as a means of setting wages?
I also own a business (for 2 yrs now) and actually "it" turned a profit this yr, so I have decided to take a wage from it(didn't take any money from it in 2001, so no it wasn't part of the equation) also for this yr (2002). So, my wages (am still going to be an engineer) at my business will probably only be a modest 50-60k, and once you put it on top of the engineering wages, well, then wahlah, I have doubled my wages again!
So, if you want to do the % vs. CEO's again next yr I will surely be 6-8 x next yr! Go figure, and to think I actually have risen from the depths of hell in "minwage"! Cha ching!
METARZAN!
or why should I? had nothing to do with me, nor you. sorry, but the only fair thing to do to misery or happiness that is not attributable to the individual is to spread it around.
actually no it has not been tried before, and i am explicitly not describing communism. in communism the benefits of an individuals actions would not go to him, but would be socialised. likewise the cost. i explicitly want the benefits of an individuals actions to go to said individual, and likewise the costs. what i do not want is benefits/costs of actions not one's own (say by their ancestors) to arbitrarily go to said person. when there are certain benefits or costs that no individual can be found to apply them to, the only fair thing to do to them would be to share them. do you see the difference between this and communism?
Yeah, I tried it. Can't say I was shocked. I think most of us here on FR work hard, are fairly successful, and prefer capitalism over any alternative that's been tried.
Now if we were on welfare, or dropped out of high school to work at McDonalds, or spent all our time spiking trees or burning down mink farms then we would indeed be shocked. We might even wish we had stayed in school to participate in the rewards.
Sounds a lot like Marx to me - "from those according to their means, to those according to their needs"
That view is totally incompatible with conservatism and the individual rights on which this country was founded.
Sure I can. It is more fair to pay someone enough to buy food, than to work someone 40 hours/week and not pay them enough to eat. (and live indoors.) First you tried to paint me as a Marxist. Now, you appear to be devolving in post-modernist deconstruction ala "Can anyone really define "fair." I guess I am slowly winning you over. Soon you will have no place to run! parsy.
"At what point do you think government should set wages?" ---At the bottom, mostly.
"Second, you make the common mistake of failing to remember that the value of the employee must exceed the cost of the employee." ---Not necessarily. See all the CEO stuff above. Seriously though, at the very least we are setting - "Value of Employee" is greater than or equal to 'Minimum Cost of Employee."
"Otherwise, you've only created a form of welfare where the government mandates that companies hire a certain number of employees" --Gee whiz, where did I mandate a certain number of employees???. . ."and pay them, not wages, but welfare." --Dear Dug, we're having to pay them WELFARE now because these looters aren't paing livable WAGES. (You should love my proposals. Why are you being so recalcitrant? Oh, I forgot you are still addicted to certain conservative theories and not yet able to wean yourself from them. Oh well, I'll soon fix that by cracky!"
Second, forcing employers to raise the costs of their goods affect those at the bottom of the income scale more harshly than those higher up the scale." Oh this is kaa-kaa. The impact of higher minimal wages on prices has been discussed before. It has no merit.
"One is remind of Hillary during the health care debacle claiming that she "could not be concerned with every underfunded corporation". These underfunded businesses might be the source of jobs for many. . ." Actually, the only thing Hillary (barf, hack) ever said that I agreed with. If the cheap SOB's can't manage their businesses well enough to pay fair minimum wages, then "Exit, Stage Left" , "Gong,Gong" , "Good riddance to bad rubbish." It's called evolution, Duke. It improves the species. Some people ain't really meant to be in business for themselves. Let us end their suffering, and the suffering of their employees.
"Wonderfull, an employer can't determine the value of an employee but, somehow, the government can?" Guess not or they would pay them enough to survive without welfare.
"Employers must know the value of their employers or they will go broke." Geeeesh. They go broke anyway. Nine out of ten small businesses fail. You know why? Most of 'em are idiots. That's why. If we made the idiots pay a fair livable wage, less idiots would go into business. The smart folks would not have to contend with a pack of underfunded idiots constantly screwing up pricing structures.
Now, where is the corresponding incentive that applies to government?---Fairness. Equity. Political stability. A good economy. Re-election. Citizens who are not starving. A more union. justice. Domestic tranquility. Promoting the general welfare. {Gee, this sounds good! I think I am on a roll!) Securing the blessings. . .(You Freepers get off my back! Doris Kearnes Goodwin says this is OK.)...parsy.
???? ---This does not compute. Consider this, many states require a building contractor to carry a Contractors Bond and have some minimal Net Worth, or no license. I am not aware that we have a "right" to a contractor with a bond. Similarly, we "obligate" doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and cosmetologists to undergo certain rigourous training prior to practicing their trade. I am not sure that Enron, for example, has a "right" to an auditor with a college education. parsy.
PS: Are you deconstructing again? I can't tell. I have a "right" to own a weapon, but no one has an "obligation" to provide me with one. I have a "right" to free speech. No one has an "obligation" to listen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.