Welcome to Gaia! ::

Old Blue Collar Joe
Project 429
Old Blue Collar Joe
Project 429
Old Blue Collar Joe


Salary caps are bullshit. Someone builds a business up to where it is worth millions or billions, that is the fruit of their labor and effort, and risk taking.


We would do well to stop saying that billionaires are anything but incredibly lucky. It takes a special kind of arrogance to say that billions (billions!) are earned while people still are working for less then a dollar a day. This leads to an equally special brand of obnoxious Randian power fantasies and delusions of invincibility that make the upper class goddamn insufferable and completely unsympathetic.

Like I said earlier; an obligation is not a solution but to pretend they made it themselves is pants-on-head retarded.


Good marketing, good business management skills and a talent for finding what people want is hardly luck. Luck is the codeword of those that simply don't have the knack to do it, or the work ethic to make it happen. (And damn few do. I damn well don't and wouldn't do it.)


Delusional is not a word that adequately describes a man who believes in this world all equal talent is equally rewarded. Insane is not a word that adequately describes someone who thinks manual labor is a billion-fold less valuable then business management. Many careers require time and specialization that we aren't all capable of - we just happen to pay the investment banker more then we do the EMT. You're kidding yourself if you think both of these people could do each others job.

I don't care if you work a hundred hour workweek and die unloved and/or emotionally dead in your early 30s because of your dedication to your business; you're not a billion times more valuable than the farmer, the roughnecker, the soldier, the social worker or even the unemployed.


Where'd I say they could or should do each others job? Wait... I didn't. Nor did I just say it was talent alone that determined how far some one got. Manual labor less valuable than business management? Bad news for ya. In terms of supply and demand? Manual labor isn't worth as much.
There are fifty thousand shovel jockeys and spatula monkeys for every one competent business manager.
And in terms of value, you need to learn the difference between what someone is willing to pay for and what they expect for cheap.
Farmers are typically paid better than roughnecks, soldiers, or social workers. The unemployed? Depends on which class. Those who've had a job and are looking (the true unemployed) those who've retired (earned their rest.) or those who simply live on public entitlements and think they've got said right (the leeches.)
It may piss you off, but supply and demand determine someone's worth, not some touchy feely bullshit.


Now if only there was some way to exploit the natural malleability of supply and demand...
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


I'm not going to ******** over one person for another. I am a staunch supporter of property rights, and those who follow socialist agendas aren't worth listening to. We're working on the environmental s**t, even the paranoid delusionist stuff. But I'm realist enough to know there's no magic button to fix it.


except when i propose a wage cap that's not ******** anyone over whatsoever.

"property rights" no you are not. you are a supporter for your idea of what is right but that isn't the only way. don't start acting like your way is the very definition of "rights"....that's wrong.


Matter of perspective. I strongly disagree with yours. It's as simple as that.


how is putting a wage cap on personal income at ~10million ******** someone over?


Because that flies in the face of personal freedom and the ability to succeed to as high a level as one is possible to achieve. We have a bottom, which is the safety net. There is no justification for capping success.


why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with?

the safety net/bottom doesn't even make as much sense as a cap to 'success' money. this is because we can never know how many people will be on this world and how much resources it is going to take to ensure that all of them get minimum wage. however the cap makes sense because then no one can take too much (aka hoard) and so at least we know not one person is taking everything and resources have to be spread around some. that is why a cap makes even more sense than a safety net.

however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net. i think that would be easily attained and it's only right considering we can all afford it easily and it's important...etc
Project 429
Old Blue Collar Joe
Project 429
Old Blue Collar Joe
Project 429
Old Blue Collar Joe


Salary caps are bullshit. Someone builds a business up to where it is worth millions or billions, that is the fruit of their labor and effort, and risk taking.


We would do well to stop saying that billionaires are anything but incredibly lucky. It takes a special kind of arrogance to say that billions (billions!) are earned while people still are working for less then a dollar a day. This leads to an equally special brand of obnoxious Randian power fantasies and delusions of invincibility that make the upper class goddamn insufferable and completely unsympathetic.

Like I said earlier; an obligation is not a solution but to pretend they made it themselves is pants-on-head retarded.


Good marketing, good business management skills and a talent for finding what people want is hardly luck. Luck is the codeword of those that simply don't have the knack to do it, or the work ethic to make it happen. (And damn few do. I damn well don't and wouldn't do it.)


Delusional is not a word that adequately describes a man who believes in this world all equal talent is equally rewarded. Insane is not a word that adequately describes someone who thinks manual labor is a billion-fold less valuable then business management. Many careers require time and specialization that we aren't all capable of - we just happen to pay the investment banker more then we do the EMT. You're kidding yourself if you think both of these people could do each others job.

I don't care if you work a hundred hour workweek and die unloved and/or emotionally dead in your early 30s because of your dedication to your business; you're not a billion times more valuable than the farmer, the roughnecker, the soldier, the social worker or even the unemployed.


Where'd I say they could or should do each others job? Wait... I didn't. Nor did I just say it was talent alone that determined how far some one got. Manual labor less valuable than business management? Bad news for ya. In terms of supply and demand? Manual labor isn't worth as much.
There are fifty thousand shovel jockeys and spatula monkeys for every one competent business manager.
And in terms of value, you need to learn the difference between what someone is willing to pay for and what they expect for cheap.
Farmers are typically paid better than roughnecks, soldiers, or social workers. The unemployed? Depends on which class. Those who've had a job and are looking (the true unemployed) those who've retired (earned their rest.) or those who simply live on public entitlements and think they've got said right (the leeches.)
It may piss you off, but supply and demand determine someone's worth, not some touchy feely bullshit.


Now if only there was some way to exploit the natural malleability of supply and demand...


You can only manufacture so many of an item in a set period of time. Thus, Supply. Demand depends on numerous factors, and can critical items, (needs) such as gas and food, of non-essential, (wants) such as Tickle Me Elmo, which was selling for up to five hundred dollars at a crack when it came out, due to being so very popular.
Needs are set. Reality is, you won't get beyond certain points. Wants are whimsical, and take a lot of study and understanding your market.
It's also a much larger risk than needs, because you can spend a fortune marketing and manufacturing, and then sell...damn near nothing.
No way to exploit it, beyond market study and having the knack for what will be popular. One thing I have in my favor is, by and large, I tend to fall in the mainstream on what is popular and such. It actually helps to be moderate, because I have a decent idea, if I like it, it will be popular, but even that isn't exact. There's things I can't tolerate that seem to be apeshit popular among their niche markets.
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


I'm not going to ******** over one person for another. I am a staunch supporter of property rights, and those who follow socialist agendas aren't worth listening to. We're working on the environmental s**t, even the paranoid delusionist stuff. But I'm realist enough to know there's no magic button to fix it.


except when i propose a wage cap that's not ******** anyone over whatsoever.

"property rights" no you are not. you are a supporter for your idea of what is right but that isn't the only way. don't start acting like your way is the very definition of "rights"....that's wrong.


Matter of perspective. I strongly disagree with yours. It's as simple as that.


how is putting a wage cap on personal income at ~10million ******** someone over?


Because that flies in the face of personal freedom and the ability to succeed to as high a level as one is possible to achieve. We have a bottom, which is the safety net. There is no justification for capping success.


why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with?

the safety net/bottom doesn't even make as much sense as a cap to 'success' money. this is because we can never know how many people will be on this world and how much resources it is going to take to ensure that all of them get minimum wage. however the cap makes sense because then no one can take too much (aka hoard) and so at least we know not one person is taking everything and resources have to be spread around some. that is why a cap makes even more sense than a safety net.

however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net. i think that would be easily attained and it's only right considering we can all afford it easily and it's important...etc


Nope. The more you give people, the less they work for. It's been verified and studied, and we are, by and large, lazy ********. Thus, you don't cap success, you cap assistance.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

My Dog Mr. Kitty
low iq 111
if it is less risky then it is not risky. you can't say anything above 0 risk is risky.

Why not?
Placing a $1 bet on a football game is risky, technically

Quote:
prove it.

Because otherwise everyone would be creating extremely successful businesses like in the link you posted
There's a limited amount of money that can be made from any individual business type, so only the smart and lucky make it big

Quote:
then prove that a person deserves billions of dollars from it while others who work just as hard to earn a dollar a day.

It isn't about how much you work, it's about if your work can be done by others
This idea has been pointed out to you many times

Quote:
what? what is this supposed to prove?

It shows that just because you want people to do something, you don't force them to

Quote:
first of all you've never said that or at least not 'many times'....

Yes, I have

Quote:
this is wrong because if we simply had a wage cap, we could help other people.

By eliminating the free market

Quote:
but instead you allow the bullies to continue their destructive ways. you can't just say that you would help if you had the chance, you do have the chance....

I do?

Quote:
but you are not using it. when you hear of child abuse you are required to report it to police. there are children starving right now who need you to bring up the issue to the people who can make a difference (like the police).

Wait, did you really just compare not forcing people to give their money away to ignoring child abuse?

Really?


okay technically, but not in the context of this discussion, try again.

"Because otherwise everyone would be creating extremely successful businesses like in the link you posted"

just because people don't do something means it = risky. people don't listen to good music but that isn't risky....

"There's a limited amount of money that can be made from any individual business type, so only the smart and lucky make it big"

yes but mostly lucky, which is why there should be a cap.

"It isn't about how much you work, it's about if your work can be done by others
This idea has been pointed out to you many times"

prove that most people couldn't 'make it big' if they had the same opportunities as the guy who did

"It shows that just because you want people to do something, you don't force them to"

generally, yes. i mostly agree in freedom from the government. but in the context of personal income caps, you do force them because it is important like preventing murder. wink

"By eliminating the free market"

wrong. the free market would not be completely eliminated if there was a wage cap.

"Wait, did you really just compare not forcing people to give their money away to ignoring child abuse?"

what's wrong with it?
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


Matter of perspective. I strongly disagree with yours. It's as simple as that.


how is putting a wage cap on personal income at ~10million ******** someone over?


Because that flies in the face of personal freedom and the ability to succeed to as high a level as one is possible to achieve. We have a bottom, which is the safety net. There is no justification for capping success.


why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with?

the safety net/bottom doesn't even make as much sense as a cap to 'success' money. this is because we can never know how many people will be on this world and how much resources it is going to take to ensure that all of them get minimum wage. however the cap makes sense because then no one can take too much (aka hoard) and so at least we know not one person is taking everything and resources have to be spread around some. that is why a cap makes even more sense than a safety net.

however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net. i think that would be easily attained and it's only right considering we can all afford it easily and it's important...etc


Nope. The more you give people, the less they work for. It's been verified and studied, and we are, by and large, lazy ********. Thus, you don't cap success, you cap assistance.


first of all, i agree with capping assistance as well as "success" money. after everyone in the world has food and education and the other most basic needs (not really sure what else though) then all the resources should go to rebuilding the rain forest.
who said i didn't want to cap assistance?
secondly, you need to prove that what you are saying is true. you need to prove that people are starving and uneducated because they don't work hard enough.
thirdly, your logic doesn't even follow. it is possible to cap success money and cap assistance as well. if money is capped then what proof do you have that people will stop working? that is not even logically sound.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha

And nothing about valuing a book or a toy makes it impossible to value intellectual/spiritual matters. Neither are exclusive.

I am speaking about the sentimental value, in that people can develop such attachments to objects in both things of value and things which are worthless.

Cite for me one study then, if there are indeed so many, which states that no peace or enjoyment comes from accomplishing a goal like ownership of some object one values as a sign of comfort or status.


you said "If nothing else 'peace of mind' is very easily met by the peace and comfort that comes from obtaining such signs of wealth. "

you were implying that peace of mind can be exclusively met by materialism there.

"I am speaking about the sentimental value,"

too much 'sentimental value' for an object = materialism. so what is your point?

i've already posted them itt but here they are again.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-15/health/31317905_1_consumer-materialism-experiments

+ if there were a wage cap then there would still be plenty of room for materialism and sentimental value for objects or whatever bullshit you've been spewing so why the ******** are you even arguing anyway? lmao

I was not implying that. There is nothing in the cited quote that uses any word close to exclusivity. I merely said peace of mind is easily met by the peace and comfort one gets from obtaining things of value, like a home they actually own. 'Easily met' does not amount to 'exclusively is met'.

Yes, 'too much'. You assumed, erroneously, that I was referring to 'too much'. I am not, and have given no cause to.

Finally, your source discusses 'activation of a consumer mindset.'. This is not, as I asked for a study which shows that, "no peace or enjoyment comes from accomplishing a goal like ownership of some object one values as a sign of comfort or status.".


>"I was not implying that."
well then my mistake. i'm glad you were not implying that. now we can move on.

>"Finally, your source ..."

how is my source not proving what i said? elaborate?

I can't elaborate much more past pointing out that a 'consumer mindset' is a distilled set of values and expressed needs and motivations in a particular lifestyle. I am speaking to something that is, well, simply not that. Its much more akin to obtaining goals one sets for your self, and saying that existential goals like peace and comfort can be represented in obtaining physical objects. It is not to say, I mentioned, that one be obsessed with these objects, but that objects can take on positive meanings to people that bring good things without some notion of excess.

This is a simple truth that, in my opinion, property should recognize. We ought to allow people to purchase mansions or yachts if they desire, and not work from some communist notion of complete and forced collective pooling of resources.


i don't want complete and forced pooling of resources. i don't even know what you are arguing for anymore.
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha

And nothing about valuing a book or a toy makes it impossible to value intellectual/spiritual matters. Neither are exclusive.

I am speaking about the sentimental value, in that people can develop such attachments to objects in both things of value and things which are worthless.

Cite for me one study then, if there are indeed so many, which states that no peace or enjoyment comes from accomplishing a goal like ownership of some object one values as a sign of comfort or status.


you said "If nothing else 'peace of mind' is very easily met by the peace and comfort that comes from obtaining such signs of wealth. "

you were implying that peace of mind can be exclusively met by materialism there.

"I am speaking about the sentimental value,"

too much 'sentimental value' for an object = materialism. so what is your point?

i've already posted them itt but here they are again.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-15/health/31317905_1_consumer-materialism-experiments

+ if there were a wage cap then there would still be plenty of room for materialism and sentimental value for objects or whatever bullshit you've been spewing so why the ******** are you even arguing anyway? lmao

I was not implying that. There is nothing in the cited quote that uses any word close to exclusivity. I merely said peace of mind is easily met by the peace and comfort one gets from obtaining things of value, like a home they actually own. 'Easily met' does not amount to 'exclusively is met'.

Yes, 'too much'. You assumed, erroneously, that I was referring to 'too much'. I am not, and have given no cause to.

Finally, your source discusses 'activation of a consumer mindset.'. This is not, as I asked for a study which shows that, "no peace or enjoyment comes from accomplishing a goal like ownership of some object one values as a sign of comfort or status.".


>"I was not implying that."
well then my mistake. i'm glad you were not implying that. now we can move on.

>"Finally, your source ..."

how is my source not proving what i said? elaborate?

I can't elaborate much more past pointing out that a 'consumer mindset' is a distilled set of values and expressed needs and motivations in a particular lifestyle. I am speaking to something that is, well, simply not that. Its much more akin to obtaining goals one sets for your self, and saying that existential goals like peace and comfort can be represented in obtaining physical objects. It is not to say, I mentioned, that one be obsessed with these objects, but that objects can take on positive meanings to people that bring good things without some notion of excess.

This is a simple truth that, in my opinion, property should recognize. We ought to allow people to purchase mansions or yachts if they desire, and not work from some communist notion of complete and forced collective pooling of resources.


i don't want complete and forced pooling of resources. i don't even know what you are arguing for anymore.

Simple: People should be able to own property, even large pieces of property, like mansions and yachts. That there are better things the money could have been spent on should not in any way present a serious challenge to ownership of yachts or mansions or other things. Nor should whether or not the particular thing purchased is being 'wasted'.

To tie it in to the OP, the wealthy do not, by some notion of natural law, have any obligation to anyone, including society, to spend their wealth in a particular way in America. The government, in our system, determines what tax payer's obligations are, and being wealthy should not constitute a separate class that gets to be immune from this otherwise important exercise of government power by virtue of their wealth alone.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

washu_2004's avatar

Shameless Heckler

10,450 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
The thing is that the rich tend to horde their wealth in Swiss bank accounts or in companies based in the Cayman Islands or some other tax shelter.

They seldom pay the correct amount of tax at the best of times.

Just last year a 13 trillion dollar tax evasion scheme was uncovered by the IRS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

Trickle down tax breaks never work since the only thing that is trickling down is not money, and I will give you a hint as to what trickles down... it's not rain.
washu_2004
The thing is that the rich tend to horde their wealth in Swiss bank accounts or in companies based in the Cayman Islands or some other tax shelter.

They seldom pay the correct amount of tax at the best of times.

Just last year a 13 trillion dollar tax evasion scheme was uncovered by the IRS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

Trickle down tax breaks never work since the only thing that is trickling down is not money, and I will give you a hint as to what trickles down... it's not rain.


The sad thing is this isn't even good ethics from an objectivist viewpoint.

Rich people are just as retarded as poor people.
My Dog Mr. Kitty's avatar

3,950 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Member 100
I still can't believe you honestly want to put a cap on success..
SlipperyFrog's avatar

Romantic Lunatic

The idea of disproportionally taxing the rich to provide to everyone else is unfair, economically dangerous, as well as horribly close to communism (again economically dangerous). Asking a few to pick up the slack for the many is unfair, and unsound. Government spending will change to accommodate the extra funds being taken in (in the form of more spending), thus permanently changing the revenue and spending practices of countless government departments. While this is all good and reasonable up to this point, the current financial plans for many government departments are designed in such a way it is near impossible to revert back once changes have been made, and in the currant geo-political, and socio-economic environment of the modern business market, the possible collapse of a single one of these large business owners (rich folk) would have a potentially crippling effect on government funding as a whole, with such a large portion of revenue coming from a single source.

In my opinion a far more viable solution would be to create tax incentives (or other programs) for these larger companies, to encourage them stop outsourcing to foreign nations, and instead operate entirely domestic, creating millions of new jobs, and the need for expanded infrastructure (again more jobs) reducing the unemployment percentage of the nation, and allowing many people to come off wellfare, freeing up still more resources, and subsidies to be poured back into the nation as a whole. If this where to then also be coupled with a balancing of the government budget, it could lead to rapid economic reform, thus potentially ending the currant economic recession.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
marshmallowcreampie
Old Blue Collar Joe


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


Oy, internet? I'd be cool with supporting more public libraries to have computers with internet, if mostly for job search and school purposes. A lot of jobs these days only allow you to apply online. But if you're talking "provide internet to all homes", well, I can't really support that either. Public libraries are good enough, yes?


money toward expanding library hours, mayhaps? that way, more people would have more time to job search through online applications, not to mention how cool it'd be to have a 16 or even 24 hour library in every city and town
Project 429

The sad thing is this isn't even good ethics from an objectivist viewpoint.

Rich people are just as retarded as poor people.


While it is true that initially the intelligence of the rich is the same as the poor, as evidenced by the idiots in the documentary Queen of Versailles, it is also true that the rich as a privileged class have access to information not available to the general public. For example, they have more immediate capabilities with regard to insider trading, military industrial complex back deals, and the inside on why politicians are making some of the decisions they do. Just like the office of president. See, the president could be a moron, but you trust that at least some of their decisions are more informed and their decisions are based on information the public does not, or cannot have for security reasons.

What this means is rich people may on average make better decisions. Your father might own a coal mine and plan on shutting it down because a politician wants to increase taxes next year but hasn't announced it and by way of friends and bribes, your father finds out early and tells you 'the mine is shutting down, don't buy any more real-estate in that area" He might not even tell you not to buy real estate, but simply mention the mine over dinner, and then you could infer it was a bad idea to keep investing in property for a community that is about to migrate.Same principles apply to things like pharmaceutical industries, new medicines, the stock market, and even new technologies. These rich people may not be smarter, but their access to information is greater. For a limited time, the internet started mimicking that behavior, but then more recently there began a lock down and dilution of publicly available information, and in some cases, direct assaults, criminalization followed by raids and abductions, and so on. Out of all of that things like Anonymous came out, but the point is information for the wealthy is again much more available than for the poor, who now have watered down versions and difficulty perceiving the differences between real, conspiracy, and satire news sources.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games