WHY is socialism (or communism) bad for a country?

[Little-Acorn]

(Adapted from an earlier thread)

------------------------------------------------------

Socialism and communism are not identical, but the differences between them are far less important than the similarities.

Both feature schemes where a central government (which isn't in communist plans but is always brought in when someone actually tries to run a communist government) judges how much people should be paid. The pay is usually based on what the govt decides they need rather than by how much they contributed.

This results in workers realizing after a few years, that working harder won't benefit them much. Some work harder anyway, others decide to slack off and/or spend more time with family etc. Then as time goes on, the harder workers see the others' example, and while most keep working hard, a few more slack off. They cycle keeps repeating with a few more reducing their effort, then later a few more etc.

Socialist or communist societies usually wind up deteriorating, because there is little incentive to work hard, aside from personal work ethics. And even those with good ethics, tend to deteriorate over a long period of time, for similar reasons.

The long, concentrated periods of difficult work, effort, and sacrifice that advance a society, come more and more from only the diminishing number who maintain their hard-work ethic and loyalty in the face of increasing indifference and lack of material reward. While those people are rightly regarded as heros or pillars, there is far less incentive to do what they do, in socialistic or communist societies. The incentive is greater in free-market societies where people can work for the chance of great rewards in addition to great moral satisfaction.

So socialistic or communistic societies invaribly lose, in competition with free-market societies. For that reason, they abhor competition, and often expend great effort to crush it or isolate themselves from it... only to lose even more from its lack.

American congressmen and other political animals, often lost track of their real jobs - protecting people's rights and defending them against theft, fraud, and coercion. And they take the easier road of getting re-elected by taking things from small numbers of the more affluent, and giving them away to larger number of the less affluent.

As this scheme gets enacted into law, it quickly deteriorates to a pattern similar to what I said above: deciding what pay people get based on what they "need" rather than what they earn. In some countries, this is done by making the government, the official employer. In others (such as the U.S.), it's done by letting the government take money out of people paychecks (with far more taken from those who earn a lot), and simultaneoulsy set up programs to pay out to those who earn less. The result is the same: Government decides who gets paid how much, usually according to what they "need" rather than what they earn.

The politicians who set this up, often didn't intend to implement socialism. But what they wind up with, isn't much different from it. More importantly, the ultimate results are no different, either.

[Wind Song]

Some socialist ideas are healthy for a country. The reason socialism hasn't worked is that it becomes corrupt.

[logroller]

Socialism, as a rule, opposes the inherent quality of any rational being to be self-interested.

[ConHog]

Socialism, as a rule, opposes the inherent quality of any rational being to be self-interested.

Not true. Under TRUE socialism EVERY being would be self interested and would work to be self sufficient, and on the other end those in charge would strive to be partners with those they rule. But in PRACTICE of course we have people who one end are lazy and on the other end are greedy.

Just as an example, I think we can agree that the people running Wal Mart don't HAVE to be earning tens of millions of dollars apiece while employees of the stores are scraping by on minimum wage, But because of their position they can take advantage of their greed.

I favor some sort of government protection to make things more equitable, but of course we have tread very lightly anytime we put the government in charge of anything.

[Missileman]

Not true. Under TRUE socialism EVERY being would be self interested and would work to be self sufficient, and on the other end those in charge would strive to be partners with those they rule. But in PRACTICE of course we have people who one end are lazy and on the other end are greedy.

Just as an example, I think we can agree that the people running Wal Mart don't HAVE to be earning tens of millions of dollars apiece while employees of the stores are scraping by on minimum wage, But because of their position they can take advantage of their greed.

I favor some sort of government protection to make things more equitable, but of course we have tread very lightly anytime we put the government in charge of anything.

The minimum wage folks have the option of starting their own store and earning their own tens of millions. Government need only protect equal opportunity.

[ConHog]

The minimum wage folks have the option of starting their own store and earning their own tens of millions. Government need only protect equal opportunity.

Except you know that that is really just feel good talk. Not only are some people not suited to running their own businesses, but what sense would it make to have a hundred million businesses with a single employee? That just doesn't even make sense.

[Missileman]

Except you know that that is really just feel good talk. Not only are some people not suited to running their own businesses, but what sense would it make to have a hundred million businesses with a single employee? That just doesn't even make sense.

The world needs laborers too. If you lack the brains or ambition to start your own business, tough shit! The suggestion that some dink with a GED who shows up for work and does just enough to get by should make $100K because the owner of the company makes millions is what makes no sense. If EVERYONE makes $100K (or more), take a guess at what $100K is worth.

[fj1200]

Just as an example, I think we can agree that the people running Wal Mart don't HAVE to be earning tens of millions of dollars apiece while employees of the stores are scraping by on minimum wage, But because of their position they can take advantage of their greed.

Employees are going to earn what the market will bear, subject to minimum wage of course. Those "running" WM are likely earning "tens of millions" based on their ownership stake. Greed? Silly.

[Gator Monroe]

Communism & Socialism have killed far more than Nazism & Fascism in the 20th & 21st Centuries

[logroller]

Not true. Under TRUE socialism EVERY being would be self interested and would work to be self sufficient, and on the other end those in charge would strive to be partners with those they rule. But in PRACTICE of course we have people who one end are lazy and on the other end are greedy.

Just as an example, I think we can agree that the people running Wal Mart don't HAVE to be earning tens of millions of dollars apiece while employees of the stores are scraping by on minimum wage, But because of their position they can take advantage of their greed.

I favor some sort of government protection to make things more equitable, but of course we have tread very lightly anytime we put the government in charge of anything.

If someone were self-sufficient, how would they be impacted by society?

To me, a socialist is one who performs tasks based on social need, not their own. Socialism would be a system whereby the individual needs are subservient to social needs; a utilitarian theory based on the greatest good for the greatest number. In theory, the social needs should fulfill the individuals' needs as well, but in practice, like you said, that doesn't happen. Not because its practically flawed, but because the theory itself opposes rational self-interest. You mentioned greed, that's an example of extreme self-interest, but its inherently human-- thus human participation in socialism is self-defeating.


Communism & Socialism have killed far more than Nazism & Fascism in the 20th & 21st Centuries

Communism, Nazism and Fascism are all rooted in socialism; where the means of production are under the authority of the state. Marx/Engels believed the true means of production, the proletariat, would eventually overpower/ dissolve the state....the state wished to remain, people who threatened them were killed. Like I said earlier, socialism's nemesis is self-interest. Its a self-defeating theory and I believe Marx was keenly aware.

[logroller]

Not true. Under TRUE socialism EVERY being would be self interested and would work to be self sufficient, and on the other end those in charge would strive to be partners with those they rule. But in PRACTICE of course we have people who one end are lazy and on the other end are greedy.

Just as an example, I think we can agree that the people running Wal Mart don't HAVE to be earning tens of millions of dollars apiece while employees of the stores are scraping by on minimum wage, But because of their position they can take advantage of their greed.

I favor some sort of government protection to make things more equitable, but of course we have tread very lightly anytime we put the government in charge of anything.

If someone were self-sufficient, how would they be impacted by society?

To me, a socialist is one who performs tasks based on social need, not their own. Socialism would be a system whereby the individual needs are subservient to social needs; a utilitarian theory based on the greatest good for the greatest number. In theory, the social needs should fulfill the individuals' needs as well, but in practice, like you said, that doesn't happen. Not because its practically flawed, but because the theory itself opposes rational self-interest. You mentioned greed, that's an example of extreme self-interest, but its inherently human-- thus human participation in socialism is self-defeating.

[tailfins]

The minimum wage folks have the option of starting their own store and earning their own tens of millions. Government need only protect equal opportunity.

Under socialism they don't. As an example, John Stossel discusses something as simple as opening a LEGAL lemonade stand:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/24/i_tried_to_open_a_lemonade_stand_113235.html

[ConHog]

The world needs laborers too. If you lack the brains or ambition to start your own business, tough shit! The suggestion that some dink with a GED who shows up for work and does just enough to get by should make $100K because the owner of the company makes millions is what makes no sense. If EVERYONE makes $100K (or more), take a guess at what $100K is worth.

Who suggested $100K?

[Gator Monroe]

Eventuially Socialism runs out of "Other Peoples " money:lol:

[Missileman]

Who suggested $100K?

You didn't draw any line, so I did. If not $100K, what is fair to you? 75K? 50K? No matter what you move it up to, it becomes the new baseline and will only be worth as much as it's worth now. You can't improve everyone's economic position by giving everyone money. Moving up on the economic ladder means climbing higher than others...THAT'S reality.

[logroller]

^ FWIW, the worldwide average GDP per capita (PPP) is around $8000/year.

[ConHog]

You didn't draw any line, so I did. If not $100K, what is fair to you? 75K? 50K? No matter what you move it up to, it becomes the new baseline and will only be worth as much as it's worth now. You can't improve everyone's economic position by giving everyone money. Moving up on the economic ladder means climbing higher than others...THAT'S reality.

You're still being ridiculous.

A full time employee works 2080 hours a year. Multiply that X $7.25 an hour and you get $15,080 in wages for a full time employee. And in MANY cases these companies are not providing full time employment so that total goes down. Meanwhile corporate honchos are raking in millions.

You can be conservative and still recognize that the inequity isn't right. Not only that , but a little common sense would tell us that people earning somewhere in the neighborhood of $16K are no doubt on welfare of some sort or another. So you can easily see that WE the taxpayers are subsidizing these corporate types paying their employe peanuts. Force companies to pay everyone a living wage and you could cut the welfare rolls in half. I don't know about you, but the choice is easy to me.

[tailfins]

You're still being ridiculous.

A full time employee works 2080 hours a year. Multiply that X $7.25 an hour and you get $15,080 in wages for a full time employee. And in MANY cases these companies are not providing full time employment so that total goes down. Meanwhile corporate honchos are raking in millions.

You can be conservative and still recognize that the inequity isn't right. Not only that , but a little common sense would tell us that people earning somewhere in the neighborhood of $16K are no doubt on welfare of some sort or another. So you can easily see that WE the taxpayers are subsidizing these corporate types paying their employe peanuts. Force companies to pay everyone a living wage and you could cut the welfare rolls in half. I don't know about you, but the choice is easy to me.

Do ball players and actors making big money bother you? It's the same principle. It's very unlikely that you could replace Tim Tebow with someone from the unemployment office. The same is true for corporate executives. If a company isn't built, ALL the associated potential employees get paid ZERO.

[logroller]

You're still being ridiculous.

A full time employee works 2080 hours a year. Multiply that X $7.25 an hour and you get $15,080 in wages for a full time employee. And in MANY cases these companies are not providing full time employment so that total goes down. Meanwhile corporate honchos are raking in millions.

You can be conservative and still recognize that the inequity isn't right. Not only that , but a little common sense would tell us that people earning somewhere in the neighborhood of $16K are no doubt on welfare of some sort or another. So you can easily see that WE the taxpayers are subsidizing these corporate types paying their employe peanuts. Force companies to pay everyone a living wage and you could cut the welfare rolls in half. I don't know about you, but the choice is easy to me.

That's still a social welfare; burdened by the same results. Pay people more= less people employed= welfare recipients unchanged. That won't fix the problem of under-valued services. The issue is the labor demand being price-takers; not questioning the means by which labor is compensated. The subjective value of work is forgone when pay alone is the sole determinant. There are external costs/benefits that are, for the most part, neglected in today's society. I don't shop at walmart because of this, but I don't blame them for doing what the market demands; I blame the people for shopping there-- If no one shopped at walmart, then they'd change their ways-- that's how a free-market is meant to work. Absent that happening, they're providing what the market demands. The market is just ignorant IMO. If there were a way to il-legitimize ignorance, I'm all for for it-- but there isn't. I'll paraphrase Milton Friedman in saying, Capitalism isn't the best system, its just the best yet devised. Here's a snippet on socialism in America, by Joshua Brennon--


An Era of Socialism?
Some commentators have been foolish enough to say that the election of Obama will usher in a socialist revolution. (Please!) People like me, who have always voted Republican historically, voted for Obama largely because we felt that in today's society, the Republican party's willingness to allow the far right Christian movement determine its social agenda was frightening. I want the government out of our lives, not in it. That includes the rights of gay Americans to marry their spouse and enjoy inheritance, pension, and social security benefits. That's not socialism because these people are already paying into systems that they are prohibited from taking advantage of due to the prejudice of their neighbors. The same goes for employment discrimination. No employer should be permitted to be fire someone because they are a woman, or pregnant, or black, or male, or old, or young, or transgendered.To confuse the younger generation's more liberal social policies with the idea that we are becoming socialist on the economic front is stupid. Think I'm wrong? Just wait. If tax rates go to 70% and entrepreneurship isn't rewarded, people like me will simply pack up and leave. I'm not kidding. One of my heroes, John Templeton, moved money around the world from the Bahamas. Voltaire maintained investments in almost all European countries so he could flee at a moment's notice. Capital, and intelligence, will flow where it is most valued. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who create jobs will tolerate working for nothing.If anything, I'll just shut the factories and retire for good. Call it selfish if you want, but the fact is, it's the truth. I'm the only one being honest enough to tell it to you like it is. (I think it's selfish to have eighteen children in a world with 6.5 billion people and counting. I think it's selfish to expect a raise for working for a company for no other reason than you've been there another year because I believe in pay for performance. I still believe you have the right to maintain those assertions.)http://beginnersinvest.about.com/b/2009/09/28/milton-friedman-on-why-capitalism-will-always-win.htm

[Missileman]

You're still being ridiculous.

A full time employee works 2080 hours a year. Multiply that X $7.25 an hour and you get $15,080 in wages for a full time employee. And in MANY cases these companies are not providing full time employment so that total goes down. Meanwhile corporate honchos are raking in millions.

You can be conservative and still recognize that the inequity isn't right. Not only that , but a little common sense would tell us that people earning somewhere in the neighborhood of $16K are no doubt on welfare of some sort or another. So you can easily see that WE the taxpayers are subsidizing these corporate types paying their employe peanuts. Force companies to pay everyone a living wage and you could cut the welfare rolls in half. I don't know about you, but the choice is easy to me.

You're still being obtuse.

Double that minimum wage and all the prices will double with it, in effect changing nothing. The same folks would STILL be on welfare.

[gabosaurus]

Because some people here want it to be so. Gives them a blanket term to throw around when indicting alleged evil doers.

[SassyLady]

You're still being obtuse.

Double that minimum wage and all the prices will double with it, in effect changing nothing. The same folks would STILL be on welfare.

No, no, no MM!!!! ConHog does not believe prices will go up .... because the money used to pay the employees a "living wage" comes off the owner's/CEO's salary. Bottom line stays the same ... it's just a redistribution of who gets what.

[tailfins]

No, no, no MM!!!! ConHog does not believe prices will go up .... because the money used to pay the employees a "living wage" comes off the owner's/CEO's salary. Bottom line stays the same ... it's just a redistribution of who gets what.

If the CEO's compensation at Wal-mart was reduced to one dollar per year and evenly distributed among all the rest of the employees, how much of a raise would they get?

[ConHog]

Now I remember why I took a break from this place. It's getting more scow like by the day.

[logroller]

If you the paid of the CEO of Walmart to $1, you wouldn't attract a very qualified leader and Walmart would flounder, leading to a multitude of undesirable results. Its not as though executive officers fly from town to town aboard corp jets collecting bags of loot; they do work. Work that, were they to do poorly, would cost the business the working capital and dividends which drive the business itself, including all the employees' jobs. It might seem noble for someone like Buffett, (Warren, not Jimmy), to only pay himself $1 per year, but fully vested to the tune of billion$ and hedged against any downturn, its not as though he's sacrificing much. He probably pays more in taxes than most CEOs make.

[Dilloduck]

Some people's skills have more value than others.

[ConHog]

If you the paid of the CEO of Walmart to $1, you wouldn't attract a very qualified leader and Walmart would flounder, leading to a multitude of undesirable results. Its not as though executive officers fly from town to town aboard corp jets collecting bags of loot; they do work. Work that, were they to do poorly, would cost the business the working capital and dividends which drive the business itself, including all the employees' jobs. It might seem noble for someone like Buffett, (Warren, not Jimmy), to only pay himself $1 per year, but fully vested to the tune of billion$ and hedged against any downturn, its not as though he's sacrificing much. He probably pays more in taxes than most CEOs make.

Once again, no one is advocating paying the CEO of WM $1 a year.

Why the need to take everything to ridiculous extremes?

[Missileman]

Once again, no one is advocating paying the CEO of WM $1 a year.

Why the need to take everything to ridiculous extremes?

Why do you continue to dodge the drawing of your own line? Why won't you put a number on the "fair" compensation for the CEO of a huge corporation? Why won't you put a number on the "fair" compensation of an unskilled, bottom-rung employee?

Getting paid for what you bring to the table has inspired people to better themselves, inspired entrepreurism, inspired invention for generations. I find your argument that we need to reward the talentless, unambitious and unmotivated totally un-inspired.

[tailfins]

Once again, no one is advocating paying the CEO of WM $1 a year.

Why the need to take everything to ridiculous extremes?


It is a marriage of Limits from Calculus and Logic. The correct answer is if the Wal-mart CEO's annual compensation was evenly distributed among the rest of the employees, each would get an annal raise of less than $20. Therefore, lowering CEO pay would not materially help the rest of the associates. Bonus question: If the CEO's NET WORTH were distributed in the same manner, how much would each get? I have exposed the fallacy that lowering CEO pay would fund a meaningful financial improvement for all other associates of the company.

[ConHog]

Why do you continue to dodge the drawing of your own line? Why won't you put a number on the "fair" compensation for the CEO of a huge corporation? Why won't you put a number on the "fair" compensation of an unskilled, bottom-rung employee?

Getting paid for what you bring to the table has inspired people to better themselves, inspired entrepreurism, inspired invention for generations. I find your argument that we need to reward the talentless, unambitious and unmotivated totally un-inspired.

I don't put a number on it, because I don't HAVE a number. I'm not some stupid Occupier who wants to redistribute the wealthy right down to the poor house. I merely note that there IS a pattern of the upper class taking advantage of the lower class in this country and the pitiful minimum wage laws do not address this.

Another factor to consider is this. Let's say for the sake of argument we doubled the minimum wage. Now you have that person who WAS making $16K a year and paying zero in income tax, and in fact probably getting a "refund" suddenly are PAYING income tax. Bye bye 47% who pay no income tax.

[Missileman]

I don't put a number on it, because I don't HAVE a number. I'm not some stupid Occupier who wants to redistribute the wealthy right down to the poor house. I merely note that there IS a pattern of the upper class taking advantage of the lower class in this country and the pitiful minimum wage laws do not address this.

Another factor to consider is this. Let's say for the sake of argument we doubled the minimum wage. Now you have that person who WAS making $16K a year and paying zero in income tax, and in fact probably getting a "refund" suddenly are PAYING income tax. Bye bye 47% who pay no income tax.

No, they wouldn't. They would redraw the line. The taxable income line would increase by $16K and the same exact people who pay no taxes would continue to pay no taxes. The same exact people would still qualify and receive welfare. What you really do, is fuck over everyone who's worked their ass off to make more than minimum wage because their wages won't be doubled and when the prices skyrocket(and they will) our money is worth less.

BTW, if you don't have a number, how can you claim the current arrangement isn't where it should be?

[ConHog]

No, they wouldn't. They would redraw the line. The taxable income line would increase by $16K and the same exact people who pay no taxes would continue to pay no taxes. The same exact people would still qualify and receive welfare. What you really do, is fuck over everyone who's worked their ass off to make more than minimum wage because their wages won't be doubled and when the prices skyrocket(and they will) our money is worth less.

BTW, if you don't have a number, how can you claim the current arrangement isn't where it should be?


Why would the lines change? That's a complete fallacy on your part. Could they change? Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean they WILL change.

To answer your question. i can claim the current system isn't where it should be because it obviously isn't working. We're the richest nation in the world, no family with 2 full time working adults should fall below the poverty line, but there you have it.

Heaven forbid some fat cats have to give up their Gulfstreams in order to pay their employees a decent wage.........

[tailfins]

Why would the lines change? That's a complete fallacy on your part. Could they change? Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean they WILL change.

To answer your question. i can claim the current system isn't where it should be because it obviously isn't working. We're the richest nation in the world, no family with 2 full time working adults should fall below the poverty line, but there you have it.

Heaven forbid some fat cats have to give up their Gulfstreams in order to pay their employees a decent wage.........

Executives could give up EVERYTHING and it wouldn't generate enough revenue to raise wages a meaningful amount. You're not doing the math. Because of the sheer number of employees a huge multiplier effect kicks in. A company can only operate at a loss for so long before everything is gone. After everything is gone, the whole company gets nothing. That is unless you're Government Motors where the shareholders and bond holders who depend on that money for their retirement plans lose everything and the UNION BOSS fat cats get to rake in a haul. B-HO altered the customary liquidation order for GM that investors buy into in good faith. Do "fat cats" include ball players and actors?

[Kathianne]

No, they wouldn't. They would redraw the line. The taxable income line would increase by $16K and the same exact people who pay no taxes would continue to pay no taxes. The same exact people would still qualify and receive welfare. What you really do, is fuck over everyone who's worked their ass off to make more than minimum wage because their wages won't be doubled and when the prices skyrocket(and they will) our money is worth less.

BTW, if you don't have a number, how can you claim the current arrangement isn't where it should be?

Not to mention that the costs of all goods would increase, to cover the salary increases, thus harming the lowest the most.

[ConHog]

Executives could give up EVERYTHING and it wouldn't generate enough revenue to raise wages a meaningful amount. You're not doing the math. Because of the sheer number of employees a huge multiplier effect kicks in. A company can only operate at a loss for so long before everything is gone. After everything is gone, the whole company gets nothing. That is unless you're Government Motors where the shareholders and bond holders who depend on that money for their retirement plans lose everything and the UNION BOSS fat cats get to rake in a haul. B-HO altered the customary liquidation order for GM that investors buy into in good faith. Do "fat cats" include ball players and actors?

This is the second time someone has brought up ball players and actors. I suppose because I'm a sports fan. Truth be told, I'm not that big a fan of pro sports and a lot of it has to do with the obscene salaries some of those folks make. I would also certainly say that what some actors earn per movie/episode is disgusting.

Of course there are a huge number of factors besides what the corporate officers make to consider. But we are only concerning ourselves with that ONE factor in this thread. If you'd like to start a thread about how unions have in many instances destroyed companies and thus cost jobs because of some of their obscene wages etc etc. I'd be happy to agree with you there.

[ConHog]

Not to mention that the costs of all goods would increase, to cover the salary increases, thus harming the lowest the most.

Not if you tie the minimum wage into the cost of living. Cost of living goes up, so does the minimum wage.

[Missileman]

Not if you tie the minimum wage into the cost of living. Cost of living goes up, so does the minimum wage.

Talk about your proverbial death spiral...raise minimum wage, prices rise to offset higher labor costs, raise minimum wage again to match higher prices, prices go even higher..ad nauseum.

[Missileman]

Why would the lines change? That's a complete fallacy on your part. Could they change? Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean they WILL change.

To answer your question. i can claim the current system isn't where it should be because it obviously isn't working. We're the richest nation in the world, no family with 2 full time working adults should fall below the poverty line, but there you have it.

Heaven forbid some fat cats have to give up their Gulfstreams in order to pay their employees a decent wage.........

It's not fallacy, it's fact. If EVERYONE has $50K, then $50K isn't worth anything...it has NO VALUE.

And for the 3rd or 4th time now, you've failed to put a number to this "decent" or "fair" wage.

[fj1200]

You can be conservative and still recognize that the inequity isn't right. Not only that , but a little common sense would tell us that people earning somewhere in the neighborhood of $16K are no doubt on welfare of some sort or another. So you can easily see that WE the taxpayers are subsidizing these corporate types paying their employe peanuts. Force companies to pay everyone a living wage and you could cut the welfare rolls in half. I don't know about you, but the choice is easy to me.

Maybe you can acknowledge that the inequity isn't right but the conservative position is not to claim that more intervention by government would magically solve the issue. Forcing a "living wage" results in higher labor costs on a segment of the population that is already having their options limited by already high regulatory and labor costs. Your solution is only adding to the underlying causes.

Besides, those corporate types are already the taxpayers that are subsidizing the minimum wage workers. Of course most heads of household aren't really the ones earning those minimum wage jobs anyway.


Now I remember why I took a break from this place. It's getting more scow like by the day.

If having to defend your position is "scow like" then...


I don't put a number on it, because I don't HAVE a number. I'm not some stupid Occupier who wants to redistribute the wealthy right down to the poor house. I merely note that there IS a pattern of the upper class taking advantage of the lower class in this country and the pitiful minimum wage laws do not address this.

Another factor to consider is this. Let's say for the sake of argument we doubled the minimum wage. Now you have that person who WAS making $16K a year and paying zero in income tax, and in fact probably getting a "refund" suddenly are PAYING income tax. Bye bye 47% who pay no income tax.

Well that's the rub isn't it? Putting a number on it. Your position ultimately boils down to a number and if you're going to present a solution that has at its base, a number, it's incumbent upon you to put one up. The other side of the coin is not to put a number on it but to present a solution that will encourage what everyone wants; Individuals to earn higher wages and be comfortable.

[Gator Monroe]

Now I remember why I took a break from this place. It's getting more scow like by the day.

Actuially Middle Left posters are throwing their weight around with more regularity and demographics are shifting here ...

[tailfins]

Now I remember why I took a break from this place. It's getting more scow like by the day.

This site is turning into a flat-bottom boat that hauls freight?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scow

[ConHog]

It's not fallacy, it's fact. If EVERYONE has $50K, then $50K isn't worth anything...it has NO VALUE.

And for the 3rd or 4th time now, you've failed to put a number to this "decent" or "fair" wage.

EVERYONE would not have $50K. And what part of this aren't you getting? If you have $15K in income and $8K in "entitlements" but suddenly instead you have $23K in income and $0 in "entitlements" you still have $23K . The dollar hasn't been devalued, the ONLY thing that has changed is that the government is no longer making up the difference.

I don't have a number because I don't have a number. Same reason why when discussing a sales tax instead of the income tax I don't have a number. I don't have the information to know what percentage would work. Same here, I don't have the information to know what numbers would work.

IF you are that concerned about it, we can take this to a one on one and then I will attempt to come up with a number that works. Otherwise I think my point that we need to try something else stands on its own.

[tailfins]

EVERYONE would not have $50K. And what part of this aren't you getting? If you have $15K in income and $8K in "entitlements" but suddenly instead you have $23K in income and $0 in "entitlements" you still have $23K . The dollar hasn't been devalued, the ONLY thing that has changed is that the government is no longer making up the difference.

I don't have a number because I don't have a number. Same reason why when discussing a sales tax instead of the income tax I don't have a number. I don't have the information to know what percentage would work. Same here, I don't have the information to know what numbers would work.

IF you are that concerned about it, we can take this to a one on one and then I will attempt to come up with a number that works. Otherwise I think my point that we need to try something else stands on its own.

Does that mean cut off entitlements for people that don't work? Either you get into micromanaging compensation company-by-company or accept that forced wage increases are going to force some companies out of business or both. Solyndra and Government Motors show how well government is at maintaining viable companies. I have a personal minimum wage and it's well above $50K. Either I get my minimum wage or I stay at the company just long enough to train me in a new area of expertise, then utilize that training elsewhere at my personal minimum wage. Why can't other people do the same?

[Little-Acorn]

Actuially Middle Left posters are throwing their weight around with more regularity
Don't mistake their increased stridency for increased weight. Leftists always scream louder and longer like that, when they are losing and being relegated to the obscurity they and their agenda deserve.


and demographics are shifting here ...

Yep, away from the Left. More and more people are realizing what a failure liberal socialism is. And more and more leftists are realizing how few people they are fooling any more, and how much audience they have lost.

The Titanic got noisier too, the lower it settled into the water and the more desperate its occupants got.

[Missileman]

EVERYONE would not have $50K. And what part of this aren't you getting? If you have $15K in income and $8K in "entitlements" but suddenly instead you have $23K in income and $0 in "entitlements" you still have $23K . The dollar hasn't been devalued, the ONLY thing that has changed is that the government is no longer making up the difference.

Your plan won't work. The difference will be made up by the consumers, because prices will go up. On top of that, you economically harm everyone who is already making more than minimum wage because their wages aren't going to increase but prices will, rendering their wages less valuable.

There are already plans afoot to dump employees' healthcare on employers...now you want to dump other necessities on them too. How long do you figure a business can stay afloat having to pay for employees' housing, car, groceries, etc? Where are these people going to get a "living wage" after you've driven the company they were working for out of business?

[tailfins]

Where are these people going to get a "living wage" after you've driven the company they were working for out of business?

Magic, activated by the power of Democrat elected officials. :dance:

[fj1200]

EVERYONE would not have $50K. And what part of this aren't you getting? If you have $15K in income and $8K in "entitlements" but suddenly instead you have $23K in income and $0 in "entitlements" you still have $23K. The dollar hasn't been devalued, the ONLY thing that has changed is that the government is no longer making up the difference.

No, many of those people now have zero because you've raised their cost of employment even farther above what they actually contribute to a companies bottom line.


I don't have a number because I don't have a number. Same reason why when discussing a sales tax instead of the income tax I don't have a number. I don't have the information to know what percentage would work. Same here, I don't have the information to know what numbers would work.

IF you are that concerned about it, we can take this to a one on one and then I will attempt to come up with a number that works. Otherwise I think my point that we need to try something else stands on its own.

But this is not "something else." It's more of the same by which government mandates what a private enterprise needs to do (new mandated insurance coverage) or a group of politicians decide that they needs to do something to "help" by creating an entitlement (SS/Medicare) which is funded by a tax which is levied on dollar one placing a larger burden on those that are the least skilled in the first place.

[ConHog]

Does that mean cut off entitlements for people that don't work? Either you get into micromanaging compensation company-by-company or accept that forced wage increases are going to force some companies out of business or both. Solyndra and Government Motors show how well government is at maintaining viable companies. I have a personal minimum wage and it's well above $50K. Either I get my minimum wage or I stay at the company just long enough to train me in a new area of expertise, then utilize that training elsewhere at my personal minimum wage. Why can't other people do the same?

Ugh, don't get me started on "entitlements." Seriously, since that IS a related subject. Yes, I would cut off people who just refuse to work. Now of course we are talking about people who won't work, not those who can't work. Even if you're just out cleaning the streets, I believe every able bodied person should have to contribute SOMETHING to get something back.

Your personal minimum wage is all well and good, but let's face it, not everyone can demand a $50K salary. There are some jobs that just shouldn't pay that much; BUT that doesn't mean that those in those jobs should be eligible for welfare because of the job they hold. Even a ditch digger deserves the dignity of earning enough money to make his own way. I'm sorry that that view isn't conservative enough for some , but it is a fact. Just be thankful you aren't that ditch digger trying to make it with 2 kids on $7.25 an hour. Then to add insult to injury the guy who owns the ditch digging company is driving around in a car that costs what that ditch digger would earn in 10 years? Something is wrong with that picture.

[ConHog]

Your plan won't work. The difference will be made up by the consumers, because prices will go up. On top of that, you economically harm everyone who is already making more than minimum wage because their wages aren't going to increase but prices will, rendering their wages less valuable.

There are already plans afoot to dump employees' healthcare on employers...now you want to dump other necessities on them too. How long do you figure a business can stay afloat having to pay for employees' housing, car, groceries, etc? Where are these people going to get a "living wage" after you've driven the company they were working for out of business?

OH please. No company is going to go out of business if it is mandated that employees that earn over X amount of money can't earn more than Y percentage more than the lowest paid employee.

Let's say we set the limit at the highest paid employee in the company couldn't earn more than 20X the lowest paid employee in the company. Now let's say a CEO wanted to earn $10M a year. No problem, but that means the lowest paid employee couldn't earn less than $20K a year. So a company would have to sit down and think okay what can we afford to pay and remain where we are financially?

Again, I am NOT advocating a hard lined minimum wage increase.

And no prices would not necessarily increase b/c costs would largely remain the same.

[fj1200]

:facepalm99:

[tailfins]

Ugh, don't get me started on "entitlements." Seriously, since that IS a related subject. Yes, I would cut off people who just refuse to work. Now of course we are talking about people who won't work, not those who can't work. Even if you're just out cleaning the streets, I believe every able bodied person should have to contribute SOMETHING to get something back.

Your personal minimum wage is all well and good, but let's face it, not everyone can demand a $50K salary. There are some jobs that just shouldn't pay that much; BUT that doesn't mean that those in those jobs should be eligible for welfare because of the job they hold. Even a ditch digger deserves the dignity of earning enough money to make his own way. I'm sorry that that view isn't conservative enough for some , but it is a fact. Just be thankful you aren't that ditch digger trying to make it with 2 kids on $7.25 an hour. Then to add insult to injury the guy who owns the ditch digging company is driving around in a car that costs what that ditch digger would earn in 10 years? Something is wrong with that picture.

Too many people let the desire for security and complacency ruin their earning power. It's counterproductive to shut down your job search until you find a satisfactory job. Anyone who is underemployed has no business shutting down their job search. I have had to sell almost everything and move over 20 times and it isn't fun. It all comes down to if you're willing to make the sacrifice to get paid well.

[ConHog]

Too many people let the desire for security and complacency ruin their earning power. It's counterproductive to shut down your job search until you find a satisfactory job. Anyone who is underemployed has no business shutting down their job search. I have had to sell almost everything and move over 20 times and it isn't fun. It all comes down to if you're willing to make the sacrifice to get paid well.

I will AGAIN point out that not everyone has that option. PLUS there are jobs that need to be done, jobs that aren't fun, they aren't glamorous, and realistically no one wants to do them, BUT they are jobs that need doing. Someone has to man the checkout at Wal Mart (for now anyway) So why should Wal Mart get away with paying some employees so little that they qualify for welfare while other employees are making tens of millions of dollars a year? Just as an example. And don't give me "because some employees are worth more" either because obviously that is true, but look at the difference at Wal Mart since Sam passed. Store employee wages have remained stagnant while executive compensation has went through the roof; and costs have remained largely the same.

[fj1200]

^Yeah, he wasn't worth $23bb when he died.

[tailfins]

I will AGAIN point out that not everyone has that option. PLUS there are jobs that need to be done, jobs that aren't fun, they aren't glamorous, and realistically no one wants to do them, BUT they are jobs that need doing. Someone has to man the checkout at Wal Mart (for now anyway) So why should Wal Mart get away with paying some employees so little that they qualify for welfare while other employees are making tens of millions of dollars a year? Just as an example. And don't give me "because some employees are worth more" either because obviously that is true, but look at the difference at Wal Mart since Sam passed. Store employee wages have remained stagnant while executive compensation has went through the roof; and costs have remained largely the same.

Very few people are unable to keep their job search open if they really want to. It's called a ladder for a reason. Anyone underemployed should be reaching for the next rung. It all comes down to whether you choose to work for Walmart, Target, local gas station, etc for "security" or someplace like Kelly Services or similar to build a portfolio of skills. Even if all someone is smart enough to do is manual labor, one could start off digging in the mud to install cable, advance to home installations, then on to being a corporate network installer for example.

[ConHog]

Very few people are unable to keep their job search open if they really want to. It's called a ladder for a reason. Anyone underemployed should be reaching for the next rung. It all comes down to whether you choose to work for Walmart, Target, local gas station, etc for "security" or someplace like Kelly Services or similar to build a portfolio of skills. Even if all someone is smart enough to do is manual labor, one could start off digging in the mud to install cable, advance to home installations, then on to being a corporate network installer for example.

I agree with you that people should always be striving to better themselves, and this would in noway change anything for those people who are going to strive to better themselves in either case. What I'm suggesting is that there are people who simply put are not suited for anything more than the "bottom level" jobs. Those people deserve the dignity of a job that pays a decent wage.

I'm going to use Tysons as an example. Starting wage at the local Tysons plant is $13/hr. That's just a basic wage, not including if you work the night shift. . That's a starting "salary" of $27K a year plus benefits. That's a pretty good base pay for the job and completely fair. And I don't see Tyson executives going broke or chicken costing $20 a lb. Do you? So , tell me why McDonalds, Exxon, Wal Mart, etc etc etc shouldn't have to meet the same standard?

There is NO excuse for a working poor class in this country, NONE. Now lazy fucks who don't want to work? That's a different story altogether.

[fj1200]

So , tell me why McDonalds, Exxon, Wal Mart, etc etc etc shouldn't have to meet the same standard?

They do meet the same standard, offering a market based wage in exchange for labor.

[ConHog]

They do meet the same standard, offering a market based wage in exchange for labor.

No they don't Tysons pays WELL above minimum wage in this area by choice, they advertise that fact, but they can only employ so many people. As nasty and shitty as that job is they have a waiting list for it. Because of the pay. Other employers in the area pay jack shit. As the execs are driving around in BMWs their employees are on welfare. WE are subsidizing their bottom feeder wages, no matter how you try to parse it.

[tailfins]

No they don't Tysons pays WELL above minimum wage in this area by choice, they advertise that fact, but they can only employ so many people. As nasty and shitty as that job is they have a waiting list for it. Because of the pay. Other employers in the area pay jack shit. As the execs are driving around in BMWs their employees are on welfare. WE are subsidizing their bottom feeder wages, no matter how you try to parse it.

Conditions vary from company to company. It may be a symptom of CORRUPT unions. If unions honestly served their members for reasonable dues and didn't engage in heavy handed, arrogant usage of dues for political purposes they would have less opposition.

[fj1200]

No they don't Tysons pays WELL above minimum wage in this area by choice, they advertise that fact, but they can only employ so many people. As nasty and shitty as that job is they have a waiting list for it. Because of the pay. Other employers in the area pay jack shit. As the execs are driving around in BMWs their employees are on welfare. WE are subsidizing their bottom feeder wages, no matter how you try to parse it.

You've been listening to BO and his "fairness" diatribes to much. I'm pretty sure that Tyson pays that much by necessity. Nobody wants a "nasty and shitty" job and won't stay long if the pay is not worth it. Turnover is a b!tch.

[tailfins]

You've been listening to BO and his "fairness" diatribes to much. I'm pretty sure that Tyson pays that much by necessity. Nobody wants a "nasty and shitty" job and won't stay long if the pay is not worth it. Turnover is a b!tch.

What do you suppose would happen if all laws were repealed and replaced by only one law?: All activity in the United States must be done in a fair manner.

Follow-up question: If it were put to a referendum, what percent would it get in the polls? After all, who could be against fairness?

[fj1200]

^Litigation nightmare. Who gets to decide fairness. Fair to me is two individuals coming to an agreement, fair to CH is another 6 bucks an hour.

[ConHog]

You've been listening to BO and his "fairness" diatribes to much. I'm pretty sure that Tyson pays that much by necessity. Nobody wants a "nasty and shitty" job and won't stay long if the pay is not worth it. Turnover is a b!tch.

No sir, unlike some I don't base my opinions off what some politician says. Tysons pays that much too attract employees. They have a waiting list, and they seem to like it that way. There is no waiting list at McDonalds or even Wal Mart.


^Litigation nightmare. Who gets to decide fairness. Fair to me is two individuals coming to an agreement, fair to CH is another 6 bucks an hour.


If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to sell me your vehicle for $5 and you agree because you have no other option is that fair?

[Missileman]

OH please. No company is going to go out of business if it is mandated that employees that earn over X amount of money can't earn more than Y percentage more than the lowest paid employee.

Let's say we set the limit at the highest paid employee in the company couldn't earn more than 20X the lowest paid employee in the company. Now let's say a CEO wanted to earn $10M a year. No problem, but that means the lowest paid employee couldn't earn less than $20K a year. So a company would have to sit down and think okay what can we afford to pay and remain where we are financially?

Again, I am NOT advocating a hard lined minimum wage increase.

And no prices would not necessarily increase b/c costs would largely remain the same.

So the small business owner who's barely making it can hire his employees at what you call an unfair wage? Waivers and exemptions galore...you must be an incognito member of the Obama admin.

How in hell do you figure costs remain the same? You've just increased payroll by at least 50%. Obama thinks money can be obtained out of thin air too...are you two related?

[Missileman]

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to sell me your vehicle for $5 and you agree because you have no other option is that fair?

But the feds holding a gun to his head and forcing the owner of a business to pay an unskilled laborer $15 an hour whether he agrees or not IS fair?

To make things a little easier to keep straight, change your handle to LIBhog...wouldya?

[fj1200]

No sir, unlike some I don't base my opinions off what some politician says. Tysons pays that much too attract employees. They have a waiting list, and they seem to like it that way. There is no waiting list at McDonalds or even Wal Mart.

I guess I could see how you came up with this bit of brilliance all on your own... :rolleyes: ALL employers pay to attract employees and if Tyson likes it that way then good for them. I'd like to hear your reasoning on how the CRA is unconstitutional but government should force higher wages on employers.


If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to sell me your vehicle for $5 and you agree because you have no other option is that fair?

A little unfamiliar with the workings of the free-market and contract law are we?

[ConHog]

So the small business owner who's barely making it can hire his employees at what you call an unfair wage? Waivers and exemptions galore...you must be an incognito member of the Obama admin.

How in hell do you figure costs remain the same? You've just increased payroll by at least 50%. Obama thinks money can be obtained out of thin air too...are you two related?

How have I increased payroll? Millionaire execs make slightly less, the lowest paid employees make slightly more.


But the feds holding a gun to his head and forcing the owner of a business to pay an unskilled laborer $15 an hour whether he agrees or not IS fair?

To make things a little easier to keep straight, change your handle to LIBhog...wouldya?
You do realize that the government already forces companies to pay unskilled labor a certain amount don't you? If companies were fair etc etc there would be no reason for the minimum wage law to begin with.


I guess I could see how you came up with this bit of brilliance all on your own... :rolleyes: ALL employers pay to attract employees and if Tyson likes it that way then good for them. I'd like to hear your reasoning on how the CRA is unconstitutional but government should force higher wages on employers.



A little unfamiliar with the workings of the free-market and contract law are we?

You know as well as I do that there is very little that is free in our market.

[fj1200]

You know as well as I do that there is very little that is free in our market.

And even less tomorrow that I guess you're OK with. You do know that when you raise the cost of something (unskilled labor) you're going to get less of it in the long run; what's your solution then? Unseen costs my friend.

[Missileman]

How have I increased payroll? Millionaire execs make slightly less, the lowest paid employees make slightly more.

Except you suggested a formula where the lowest paid employe makes XX percentage of the highest. If this millionaire exec drops his salary down to $1, and there are cases where that's occurred, does that mean all the lowest wage employees earn a few cents?

You also made it clear that it was okay for the exec to keep his millions as long as the pay was raised for the lower rung employees, and under that scenario, the payroll would indeed go up.

[ConHog]

Except you suggested a formula where the lowest paid employe makes XX percentage of the highest. If this millionaire exec drops his salary down to $1, and there are cases where that's occurred, does that mean all the lowest wage employees earn a few cents?

You also made it clear that it was okay for the exec to keep his millions as long as the pay was raised for the lower rung employees, and under that scenario, the payroll would indeed go up.

Yes I advocate no floor on how low wages can drop :rollseyes:

And like I said if a company CHOOSES to pay their execs millions while at the same time payng the lowest paid employees X% and that causes their payroll to go up, that is their choice, but they don't HAVE to. Most companies would instead choose to cut a few million off of executive pay and bump worker pay slightly rather either dump exec pay down to nothing so they can slave wages to workers OR just keep exec pay where it is and jump employee wages a lot.

Why not stop with the wild scenarios and have an honest discussion about the idea?

[tailfins]

^Litigation nightmare. Who gets to decide fairness. Fair to me is two individuals coming to an agreement, fair to CH is another 6 bucks an hour.

Actually, I was thinking it was something Robert Mugabe might do. A single law mandating fairness is the kind of thing a dictator would do and and post underneath his mandated 100 foot tall portrait.

[tailfins]

Why not stop with the wild scenarios and have an honest discussion about the idea?

One man's wild scenario is another man's limit analysis.

[fj1200]

Actually, I was thinking it was something Robert Mugabe might do. A single law mandating fairness is the kind of thing a dictator would do and and post underneath his mandated 100 foot tall portrait.

You're right about that, it's just exactly something an African president would do and thank goodness we'll never... have... one... of... th. o. s. e...







Dammit.

[fj1200]

... and have an honest discussion about the idea?

I, for one, have been trying but others seem to want to ignore the economics of it all. :poke:

[ConHog]

Actually, I was thinking it was something Robert Mugabe might do. A single law mandating fairness is the kind of thing a dictator would do and and post underneath his mandated 100 foot tall portrait.

I would make a wonderful dictator.

[fj1200]

Mugabe probably thinks he is a wonderful dictator.

[Missileman]

Yes I advocate no floor on how low wages can drop :rollseyes:

And like I said if a company CHOOSES to pay their execs millions while at the same time payng the lowest paid employees X% and that causes their payroll to go up, that is their choice, but they don't HAVE to. Most companies would instead choose to cut a few million off of executive pay and bump worker pay slightly rather either dump exec pay down to nothing so they can slave wages to workers OR just keep exec pay where it is and jump employee wages a lot.

Why not stop with the wild scenarios and have an honest discussion about the idea?

I AM the one being honest about how things would go. You're the one that's describing some fantasy world where a company would:

a. Cut the salary of the CEO at the risk of losing him/her in order to pay the lowest employees more money.
b. Raise salaries of the lowest employees and just eat the profit loss.
c. Not pass increases in expenses on to the consumer by raising prices.

I noticed you falied to address those poor shlubs whose boss doesn't make millions that can be divided among the workers, Comrade! What mechanism would you put in place to get them a "fair" wage and who will pay for it?