Do not intervene
Yes, do intervene
The best way to have negotiating power is to offer something to the one doing the paying. If someone has such a low skill level that what they do is one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, they don't have any.
As for merit raises not being reality to you, I can tell you than handing someone a raise because they exist isn't reality. It's a handout without anything to tie it to.
You keep falling back to your ever changing goalposts concerning individual bottom quintile individuals while failing to come to any sort of understanding of long term macro consequences of Randian supply side economics.Tell you what, go into business and prove you believe what you say by paying someonen with $5/hour skills $20/hour. Until you do, butt out of what someone else should be paying an employee.
recent thread. (Those Commie Alaskan Citizens Are Getting $1884 In Oil Royalties This Year)
But to them I ask: How is it socialist to simplify our tax code? How is it socialist to be able to keep the fruits of your labor? How is it socialist to pay for what you take?
"Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
What you fail to understand about either doing yourself by going into business what you demand others be even forced to do shows your nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing loudmouth, bleeding heart Liberal that should either put up of STFU.
Well said.your (sic) nothing more than a good intentioned , do nothing loudmouth, bleeding heart Liberal that should either put up of (sic) STFU.
Your problem is that what I have put forward (all of the argument and stats) are ignored.
You want the government to do something you're not willing to do yourself ...
We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.
- Orson Welles
What I am saying is that the impact of having high merit is becoming diluted. It used to be, and is supposed to be, that $1 more merit translates into almost $1 in additional compensation, but in reality it appears to not be working that way any more. These days, the norm is more like $1 of additional merit gets you, on average, $0.44 in compensation. You have millions of people who, for example, generate $350k/year in after-expenses revenue, make $55k/year, and are just glad they have a job. That isn't how that is supposed to work in a capitalist economy. Definitely increasing your merit will still cause your income to increase, just not by as much as it should or as much as it used to.
So, I think it is key to look at the reasons that has fallen apart like that and address them. That doens't mean just giving raises for existing or whatever, that means taking steps to restore a freer market for labor with more competition and more even negotiating power. That is the opposite of paying people for existing. I am saying compensation should be more closely tied to performance, not less.
Last edited by tuhaybey; 10-01-14 at 02:13 PM.
People talk a lot about the 1%, but really is it the 0.1% or even the 0.01% that is where the real "rich-poor" gap kicks in. Well up into the 1%, you're actually still talking about people who work jobs full time or run small businesses and make great, but still sane, incomes which are often relatively proportionate to their contributions to the economy. If somebody makes $450k/year working 70 hour weeks doing something important that they're really good at, I think they should pay sizable taxes, but I don't think that the mere existence of people in that sort of situation indicates a systemic flaw in our economy.
Then you hit this cliff around the top 0.1% where you transition to people whose income bears little relation to their contributions. The top 0.1% is people who draw money out of the economy because they happened to land in a lucky position more than because they actually did something useful. They happened to be the sales guy when a big corporation signed up for a new office product supplier and they get 5% of the contract each year pretty much for nothing other than shaking a few hands and taking a client out to a fancy dinner, or maybe their father died and left them $40m, or maybe they gambled with other people's money in the market and got lucky and got to skim a few percentage off the top. But even that is somewhat comprehensible- some people will totally luck out. IMO they should be taxed far, far, more heavily than they are, and probably we should be looking more closely at whether that is a wise use of our GDP, but it isn't a total disaster. People this rich have always existed and probably always will.
Where it really gets mind boggling is the top 0.01%. These are people who rake in just incomprehensible amounts of money, often literally for nothing or wildly out of proportion with what they actually do. People whose only "job" responsibility is calling up their broker once in a while to ask how much more they are worth now who are pulling in sums of money that would practically be impossible to spend. Many, or even most, of the people in this category never worked, never did anything useful, and we're wasting massive fractions of our entire nation's GDP just flooding them with money for no real reason at all. This is a systemic problem. It is sheer waste on such a massive scale that it is crippling our entire economy. Enabling this unimaginable sort of excess costs so much that working people are basically having to forego increases in their income entirely to accomodate it. This is where almost all the GDP growth for the past 15 years has gone- down this irrational black hole of graft.