Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Ivrnet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-10-2019, 02:43 PM   #101
stone hands
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

cuz you like designing sneakers and the work environment at adidas is better than the one at nike? if everyone made the same amount then places that are horrible to work at wouldnt be able to outspend their ####ty culture. i think the hypothetical is predicated on the idea that you have to work "a" job, an engaging and fulfilling career is still more desirable than mailing it in or working at mcdonalds, even if the pay is equal
stone hands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 02:49 PM   #102
Shazam
Franchise Player
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Memento Mori
Exp:
Default

I like lazing around even more than working.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Shazam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 03:13 PM   #103
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Is there some study that demonstrated this that you can link us to? Because this seems like quite a bold claim about typical human psychology.
It's from Mark Manson's books "The subtle art of not giving a ****" and "everything is ****ed".
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 03:24 PM   #104
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon View Post
No, the problem is the other way around, the demand is the same but what is the incentive to fulfill the demand?
Why bother inventing a better sneaker when you are just going to get the same pay?
You still have to bring in the customers. If you aren't putting out good products, then you will lose business.

Also, the idea that everyone earning the same salary will lead to equality is pure garbage. It's not what you earn, but also what you do with the money. There are people that via generations of earning the same income would have huge amounts of capital built up, and other that would be in constant debt. This would be the cause of both inherent characteristics/behaviours, but also blind luck.

For example, if you gave everyone the same plot of land, one plot might have a massive gold deposit underneath it. One person might win the lottery. They could then reinvest that money and become a slum lord. I suppose the hypothetical also takes away investment income? In that case some people might own their own property and not have to pay rent, while others would. Or can you just earn investment income up to your income cap, in which case you'd see people not working at all, and just earning investment income, and then having as many kids as possible to expand their investment income earning potential through their family.

The more you think about, the more likely equal pay is likely to lead to total inequality, as it removes the most practical way to climb economic ladders, which is earning more money. The only fix is to also totally equalize ownership, which is not only impractical but has been proven not to work.
blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 03:37 PM   #105
Bindair Dundat
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Albert
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Waitwaitwait...

Your lawyer advised you that one of your options was to commit a crime and flee from the authorities?!
His tongue was rather firmly planted in his cheek at the time....



I was all of 29 y/o and rather new (Inc. circa 1992) to the whole idea of owning a "real" business.
Bindair Dundat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 04:27 PM   #106
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindair Dundat View Post
His tongue was rather firmly planted in his cheek at the time....



I was all of 29 y/o and rather new (Inc. circa 1992) to the whole idea of owning a "real" business.
What is this lawyer's name and where can one get in touch with him....?

Asking for a friend.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 11:00 PM   #107
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
You still have to bring in the customers. If you aren't putting out good products, then you will lose business.

Also, the idea that everyone earning the same salary will lead to equality is pure garbage. It's not what you earn, but also what you do with the money. There are people that via generations of earning the same income would have huge amounts of capital built up, and other that would be in constant debt. This would be the cause of both inherent characteristics/behaviours, but also blind luck.

For example, if you gave everyone the same plot of land, one plot might have a massive gold deposit underneath it. One person might win the lottery. They could then reinvest that money and become a slum lord. I suppose the hypothetical also takes away investment income? In that case some people might own their own property and not have to pay rent, while others would. Or can you just earn investment income up to your income cap, in which case you'd see people not working at all, and just earning investment income, and then having as many kids as possible to expand their investment income earning potential through their family.

The more you think about, the more likely equal pay is likely to lead to total inequality, as it removes the most practical way to climb economic ladders, which is earning more money. The only fix is to also totally equalize ownership, which is not only impractical but has been proven not to work.
Equalizing ownership has been proven to work on a small scale. Many co-ops and communes are very effective based on that principle. It tends to fail when the tragedy of the commons overwhelms the social need to contribute. So doesnít work on a mass scale.

A maximum income of 70k in an environment where business profit and investment income didnít count might lead to extensive entrepreneurship and many more small companies. If 70k was the maximum you could earn as an employee but you could earn far more as an owner taking profit you would increase the benefit of business ownership and have a severe penalty for being an employee.

So it would be difficult to keep employees without giving ownership stakes in companies.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 02:06 AM   #108
shogged
Powerplay Quarterback
 
shogged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Similar story of a kid in Australia who discovered his line of credit was unlimited. Itís a good read lol


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38308842
shogged is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to shogged For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2019, 03:36 AM   #109
DoubleF
First Line Centre
 
DoubleF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
This happened to my sister as well when she was a kid. $100k+ deposited into her "young savers" type account. The fact that her $200 in birthday money was now six figures should probably have raised a flag somewhere. They ended up letting her keep the interest it earned while they figured it out, which was a few hundred dollars iirc.

I wonder if they've gotten better about this since computers. The case I'm mentioning was ~20-25 years ago.
I've heard of similar stories that are a little more recent. Person didn't spend the money, but moved it to a savings account (or it was in a savings account?). The bank figured out the mistake and reversed the entry but didn't bother to reverse the interest.
DoubleF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 08:37 AM   #110
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shogged View Post
Similar story of a kid in Australia who discovered his line of credit was unlimited. Itís a good read lol


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38308842
Hmmm.....I think thats just the backstory to 'Rake.'
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 08:40 AM   #111
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

In the case of that Australian guy, he bought that Banksy artwork. What happens when the value of something like that appreciates beyond what he stole? Who ends up with the gains?
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 08:54 AM   #112
you&me
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
In the case of that Australian guy, he bought that Banksy artwork. What happens when the value of something like that appreciates beyond what he stole? Who ends up with the gains?
From my understanding, any property acquired through the crime will be sold off to make restitution. In the case of the Banksy, it could work out quite nicely for the convicted as the elevated value of the Banksy would offset some of the money spent on hookers and blow...

Edit - I guess you're saying if the value of the Banksy ended up eclipsing the total value of the theft... Interesting questions.

Last edited by you&me; 09-11-2019 at 09:06 AM.
you&me is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2019, 10:42 AM   #113
DoubleF
First Line Centre
 
DoubleF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
In the case of that Australian guy, he bought that Banksy artwork. What happens when the value of something like that appreciates beyond what he stole? Who ends up with the gains?
I think if the bank erroneously deposits money into your account, you consider like an over extension of a loan you need to pay back. I wouldn't consider it theft unless you were unwilling/unable to pay it back like the story in the OP hints that those individuals are unable to do.

I think as long as the guy could repay the amount, he'd be fine. I think this is also why there's been instances where individuals were able to keep the interest after the bank reverses the main transaction.
DoubleF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 11:13 AM   #114
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Equalizing ownership has been proven to work on a small scale. Many co-ops and communes are very effective based on that principle. It tends to fail when the tragedy of the commons overwhelms the social need to contribute. So doesnít work on a mass scale.

A maximum income of 70k in an environment where business profit and investment income didnít count might lead to extensive entrepreneurship and many more small companies. If 70k was the maximum you could earn as an employee but you could earn far more as an owner taking profit you would increase the benefit of business ownership and have a severe penalty for being an employee.

So it would be difficult to keep employees without giving ownership stakes in companies.
You're making the assumption that employees have some say in the matter. What you're saying about the benefits of ownership are true today, and the vast majority of people remain employees because they have to. They have to work. They also likely don't have enough capital or the proper skills to start their own businesses.

A flat salary would, in many cases, cement the divide between owner and worker, as workers would be limited in their ability to economically climb out of their situation. You'd be doing the opposite of a minimum wage and implementing a wage ceiling.

As for shared ownership working in small communities, the main issue with that is that small communities cannot really exist without access to greater infrastructure, unless they also want to suffer the consequences of disaster: drought, famine, disease, etc...For example, it's great to have a hippy commune and grow some crops, as long as you also have the outside support of hospitals, goods, clean water, food, etc...as you require them.
blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 12:42 PM   #115
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
In the case of that Australian guy, he bought that Banksy artwork. What happens when the value of something like that appreciates beyond what he stole? Who ends up with the gains?
Given he was acquitted in the end, I would guess that he should get to keep any money left over after the proceeds covers his debts. I'm sure some kind of civil forfeiture argument happened though.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:15 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016