Yeah I don't disagree with you guys at all really. I've never argued for a total state-controlled economy (maybe a couple more industries than we currently have). I've mostly been arguing for tax as a means to offset gross imbalances. Not that truck drivers and doctors should make the same money, but that the kids of truck drivers should have the same opportunities to succeed as the kids of doctors, and that education should be incentivized towards what you're good at/interested in, not what makes the most money. In order to do that, there are certain things that you either A) need to provide the truck driver with enough income that he can afford them for his family, or B) have those things provided by state and funded by taxes on excessive wealth.
Either way, I've ranted a lot about it in here so I'll leave it to others to discuss.
The kids thing - sure, but a lot of that is beyond government control and beyond the reach of redistribution. The elite/meritocracy/upper middle class is self-perpetuating and becoming more exclusive because doctors (to take an example) will tend to marry other doctors (or similar), they will tend to stay married, the parents will spend more time with their children (I am typing this on my phone with a 2 year old on my shoulder). The truck driver (not specifically - pick whatever lower 2 quintile profession you want) is much less likely to marry in the first place, is much less likely to stay married and will spend much less time raising children. So, his/her kid is already well behind on the "nurture" front. This will be more controversial, but on the "nature" front things are made even worse because, given genetics the child of two educated professionals is likely to have an IQ 2-3 standard deviations higher than the child of the gas jockey or similar.
You can't fix this with minimum wages or taxes. I would argue that the best thing the US government could do is universal daycare/preschool - you have to get them early. And you also have to get them later (grade 9 or 10) by doing what Germany does and splitting off the less intellectually inclined into "practical" education (i.e. apprenticeships) because the biggest problem I see looming is a whole cohort of useless people, who have no brains and no skills and who are not needed in the new economy. There is a shortage of skilled workers and millions of people who have no economic value - you need to figure out a way to marry those 2 issues...
Yeah I don't disagree with you guys at all really. I've never argued for a total state-controlled economy (maybe a couple more industries than we currently have). I've mostly been arguing for tax as a means to offset gross imbalances. Not that truck drivers and doctors should make the same money, but that the kids of truck drivers should have the same opportunities to succeed as the kids of doctors, and that education should be incentivized towards what you're good at/interested in, not what makes the most money. In order to do that, there are certain things that you either A) need to provide the truck driver with enough income that he can afford them for his family, or B) have those things provided by state and funded by taxes on excessive wealth.
Either way, I've ranted a lot about it in here so I'll leave it to others to discuss.
I think there a lot of grey area between a state-controlled economy and an unchecked capitalist economy. Is it okay if CEOs earn more than their lowest paid employees? Absolutely. Should they be making 200+ times what their lowest paid employees are making? Absolutely not.
That's where the state should step in and prevent that kind of inequality. For example, since 1965, the ratio of CEO pay to average pay has skyrocketed. Where CEOs once made 20x what their workers made--now those CEOs are making nearly 300x what their workers are making. How is that fair?
Interesting idea mentioned in this Boston Globe article--tying CEO pay ratio to tax rate. Companies want to pay lower taxes? Pay workers more and you get a lower tax rate. That way companies who refuse to pay workers fair wages pay more taxes. Those taxes would then go toward the safety net needed to keep those low wage workers out of poverty. Companies that have a lower ratio of CEO to worker pay would pay less in taxes, because their employees would be less of a strain on public services. These are the kinds of things that need to be put in place, because with states moving more and more toward union busting, the labor force has no chance of demanding higher pay. Therefore, the government needs to step in to stop those with power and money from stepping on those without power or money.
So it's not about limiting CEO pay randomly--it's limiting CEO pay vs. what said CEO is paying his employees. If he wants a raise? He gives his employees a raise.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Yep some pretty bad choice on the right side of the aisle. Clinton for all her flaws and Sanders in the end I think would actually be pretty good presidents.
Hillary would be a horrible president.
She shifts positions more often and more quickly than a 2-dollar prostitute, and she has absolutely no real interest in helping the "little guy" out. Even worse, she believes that she "deserves" the presidency, and has no regard for the truth or the law. She can't be trusted to make good decisions, and she can't be trusted to even support the decisions that she does make.
If I were to vote in a Democratic primary, I'd vote for Sanders--I don't agree with much of what he proposes, but at least he seems honest about what he says and believes in and there is little doubt about what kind of person he is. With him, what you see is probably what you get.
With Clinton, what you see---well, that's just what you see right now. Just wait until tomorrow to see what you'll end up getting then...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
I don't see that on the other side of the aisle.
I tend to think that Kasich would make a decent president. Unfortunately, he can't seem to get any traction and he is unlikely to make it past a few primaries. He'd likely be a compelling candidate in a general election, however.
I think there a lot of grey area between a state-controlled economy and an unchecked capitalist economy. Is it okay if CEOs earn more than their lowest paid employees? Absolutely. Should they be making 200+ times what their lowest paid employees are making? Absolutely not.
That's where the state should step in and prevent that kind of inequality. For example, since 1965, the ratio of CEO pay to average pay has skyrocketed. Where CEOs once made 20x what their workers made--now those CEOs are making nearly 300x what their workers are making. How is that fair?
It's fair if it's 300 times more difficult to find a good CEO than it is to find a good production line cog. If you are not happy with your lot, go get an MBA and become a CEO.
It's fair if it's 300 times more difficult to find a good CEO than it is to find a good production line cog. If you are not happy with your lot, go get an MBA and become a CEO.
The American population in 1965 was dramatically less educated than is the current American population. So back then, with far fewer people with a solid education, it was only 20x harder, and yet now that a college education is the bare minimum requirement, now it's suddenly 300x harder to find a CEO? I find that very hard to believe.
Also I'm pretty sure the implication is that everyone has the ability to go get an MBA (but is clearly just too lazy to do so) is pretty inaccurate. In the US, someone can easily accrue $100k+ in debt just to obtain that MBA, and few are in a place to put up that kind of an investment. Also obtaining said MBA is a far cry from a sure bet that the recipient is going to become a CEO.
It's not so simple as "get an MBA, become a CEO."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
The American population in 1965 was dramatically less educated than is the current American population. So back then, with far fewer people with a solid education, it was only 20x harder, and yet now that a college education is the bare minimum requirement, now it's suddenly 300x harder to find a CEO? I find that very hard to believe.
Also I'm pretty sure the implication is that everyone has the ability to go get an MBA (but is clearly just too lazy to do so) is pretty inaccurate. In the US, someone can easily accrue $100k+ in debt just to obtain that MBA, and few are in a place to put up that kind of an investment. Also obtaining said MBA is a far cry from a sure bet that the recipient is going to become a CEO.
It's not so simple as "get an MBA, become a CEO."
I don't really take this seriously so don't read too much into it. Any notion of government capping compensation is silly. Leave it to the owners (shareholders) to determine what they want to pay.
Well, anybody that's smart enough can get an MBA - get a student loan if you think it's worth it (it is I think).
If a CEO runs his company profitable and delivers his promises to the share holders, pays his legal obligation in taxes, and the shareholders are happy with his or her level of compensation then go nuts get paid whatever you can get.
I strongly disagree with a government regulation of upper limits of compensation.
The economic theory is that if a CEO doesn't do a good job, fails to deliver profits to shareholders he loses that job and privileges
If he or she cooks the books or doesn't pay taxes etc then the government can step in punitively.
Does the system work? Not all the time, clearly.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
looks like Sanders is gaining support from the young, first time Caucus goers and declared independents, the same group that propelled Obama to his first presidency.
We might be seeing a real momentum swing to Sanders that echos what happened to Hillary back in 2008
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I suspect massive (as in 90% or so) tax on bonus's, shares in liu of a bonus, golden handshakes and the like coupled with a larger tax on high income would solve these issues more effectively and fairly than a salary ceiling.
I'll be honest I didn't watch a second of the debate last night and probably won't again until it's down to 2 or 3 candidates. But apparently Ted Cruz dissed "New York Values"; predictably the New York Daily News responded in kind
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Thursday debate wasn't just heated, it was downright weird. And, dragging on almost two-and-a-half hours, it offered nearly every candidate a chance to say something disqualifying.
Here, the 28 most WTF moments from Thursday's Republican debate:
The Thursday debate wasn't just heated, it was downright weird. And, dragging on almost two-and-a-half hours, it offered nearly every candidate a chance to say something disqualifying.
Here, the 28 most WTF moments from Thursday's Republican debate:
I'll be honest I didn't watch a second of the debate last night and probably won't again until it's down to 2 or 3 candidates. But apparently Ted Cruz dissed "New York Values"; predictably the New York Daily News responded in kind
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
So this should be a fun exercise to see how the Republicans will turn this into a major negative
Quote:
Iran has released Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and three other Iranian-American prisoners as it anticipates the lifting of international sanctions.
Rezaian, 39, was convicted of espionage in Iran last year.
Iranian state TV named the other three as Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and and Nosratollah Khosravi.
Iran said they were being swapped for seven Iranians held in US prisons but there was no immediate US confirmation.
The Iranian state news agency listed the seven as Nader Modanlo, Bahram Mechanic, Khosrow Afghani, Arash Ghahreman, Tooraj Faridi, Nima Golestaneh and Ali Saboun.
In addition, Iranian state TV said 14 Iranians sought by the US would be removed from an Interpol wanted list.
News of the releases came after Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif predicted that international sanctions against his country would be lifted on Saturday.
He is in Vienna for talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry over Iran's nuclear deal.
The international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, is expected to confirm that Iran has scaled back its atomic activities in line with the agreement.
Billions of dollars of frozen Iranian assets are expected to be released and the sale of Iranian oil on the world market will again be permitted.
