First my assumptions weren't baseless, limiting income and forcing a bottom line won't solve the problem you wish it to solve. Secondly, I chose a million dollars to prove a point, 50,000 would do the same thing...Poverty isn't a certain number of dollars, it is a purchasing power of dollars problem.
The answer isn't to cap the prices, because then less people have work, the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create.
How would you suggest people be not exploited? by forcing a certain wage on the job? Is it just to cap someone's earnings? I am guessing you and I disagree on that, and the rest of it stems from that.
Maybe you are right, maybe capping income is the true answer to how we solve poverty, but I tend to think it isn't. You never did answer my question, what happens to innovation when there is no reward equal to the initial investment?
Lastly, I did say this:
People need help, I get that, and I am sure we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be though.
I am all for helping people, I do it all the time in one way or another. Because a journey is easier for some than it is for others doesn't make life unjust. When you say things like, 'of course brilliant people should be doctors', and then say we exploit those 'born without great minds' I get confused. Wouldn't forcing people who are intelligent to work harder to attain a certain level of education be exploiting them as well if we cap their potential?
again I will say it, this whole world seems to revolve around needs and wants...what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need.
Your assumptions were baseless, and you've followed up with more baseless assumptions.
"I chose a million dollars to prove a point" - You haven't proved any point.
"the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create" - That is completely baseless. People don't need the possibility of one day having millions of dollars to inspire them to create great and important things. And I don't need to explain why what I just said is true.
More important than capping income is making sure people earn a just compensation. No more, and no less. Most people would earn somewhere between the minimum and maximum. We could create a formula to determine the living wage, and make that the minimum wage, while setting the maximum at 10 times the minimum wage... or 11 times... or 12 times... but it's not arbitrary... it would be based on what we think as a democratic society that jobs are worth.
Most people don't need help. They need a society that respects them. They need just compensation. We should work toward creating a society where people need less and less help.
what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need and deserve.
The point I proved, whether you like it or not, with using 1 million dollars as an example was that the concept of a certain amount of money being the end of poverty and the change to living comfortably for all who wish to earn it just isn't as simple as saying it is x amount, or even the result of a formula because it is impossible to calculate every possible cost that would affect that dollar amount for every single person...the purchasing power of that dollar will adjust to the amount of dollars that are out there no matter who has them...Supply and demand still applies in a wage capped world. Unless you manage every single aspect of the economy, from pricing of gum to the pricing of homes, I don't see it working. How on earth would that be possible? do we cap profits for corporations as well? what happens to the rest of the money? does the government just get to keep it and use it as they see fit? is it distributed equally among all people? Do all nations have to subscribe to your philosophy for it to work?
Honestly, do you not see one bad thing happening with your model?
as for the rest, I guess I am not comfortable with the amount of innovation we would have without proper compensation for those individuals. People don't push the envelope technologically so that they can have their name in the paper. Most don't know who invented a technology used by millions every day, CDMA, I am wondering what would be the advantage of MASSIVE infrastructure improvements made by private companies like Sprint's revision to 4g LTE? you may not need to explain why you think they would continue, but I sure would love it if you would...Lot's of money as a reward is not necessary for innovation or for great things, but I just don't think you can argue with the idea that it sure as hell speeds it up and gets more people in on it...
If my assumptions are baseless than they are floating just below, above, or next to yours
I first want to apologize for probably being a bit of a dickhead. But at the same time, I still don't think what you're saying makes much sense.
You were using an example of an arbitrary amount of money... a million dollars... which is pointless, because obviously it's not feasible to give everyone that much money. There's no reason to do that either, and it doesn't compare to what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about giving people unearned money but determining how much money people should earn. I think we should use a complex formula to determine to the best of our ability what just compensation means for each job, and considering the technology we've come up with, I think enough of us are smart enough to figure it out. It's not going to be an exact science, but social science never is.
If a person wants more than approximately $500,000 per year to make important advances that have real value, then frankly, I think such a person is just being greedy. $500K a year is still a shit ton of money. Albert Einstein lived a middle class life, and think of all he accomplished. Einstein was also a socialist, by the way.
Actually, Einstein explains why socialism can work much better than I ever could, so I should probably just refer you to this... http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
But there is just one more thing I want to add... I think that when we have ensured just compensation for all workers, we will then know the true value of all products and services on the market, and the market can take care of the rest. We don't need to micromanage every aspect of business.
I first want to apologize for probably being a bit of a dickhead. But at the same time, I still don't think what you're saying makes much sense.
No apologies necessary, I don't take it personally, I have discussed things with you prior and never have I found you to be dickheaded.
You were using an example of an arbitrary amount of money... a million dollars... which is pointless, because obviously it's not feasible to give everyone that much money. There's no reason to do that either, and it doesn't compare to what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about giving people unearned money but determining how much money people should earn.
The feasibility of giving everyone a million dollars is as realistic as being able to force wages on jobs and not have highly negative impacts. When you force companies to make the livable wage 'x', they will only hire the people they can afford. What you are suggesting could create vast unemployment, or it could have inflationary effects on pricing. Artificial price controls would be necessary to keep things the same, and then you have a whole other ball of wax.
My point with the million dollar thing is, we would all be better off if everyone received a million dollars tomorrow, but the negatives associated with that would be terrible. The same can be said for any artificial value on employment. For good or bad, people and products are only monetarily worth what someone is willing to pay.
Poverty isn't about a specific dollar value, it is about the purchasing power of the dollars you have. The market can never decide the prices without them finding the level of supply v. demand. If we cap prices, or tell people what they can charge and then tell them how much they have to pay every employee we better also tell them they have to retain all current employees and hire new people every year. A business cannot operate properly...not all CEO's make 20 times what their line workers make.
I think we should use a complex formula to determine to the best of our ability what just compensation means for each job, and considering the technology we've come up with, I think enough of us are smart enough to figure it out. It's not going to be an exact science, but social science never is.
It is a noble thought, but that formula would be forever changing and nearly impossible to calculate. It doesn't need to be exact, but it does need to be possible I mean, just take into account region of the country...what if you are paying for heat 7 months (-14 this morning on my drive to work) a year vs never using a air conditioner or heater...it just isn't possible to do it unless we do it for every specific individual if we want to be fair.
I don't want, or think for that matter, a group of gov't workers or a formula no matter how complex can ever accurately tell me what I am worth and what I need. I don't think my life choices should have to be dictated by someone else's idea of what I need. I don't really think that is selfish, I want everyone to have that.
If a person wants more than approximately $500,000 per year to make important advances that have real value, then frankly, I think such a person is just being greedy. $500K a year is still a shit ton of money. Albert Einstein lived a middle class life, and think of all he accomplished. Einstein was also a socialist, by the way.
But that is your definition, and again why I said that people always WANT to tell other people what they NEED. to me, being a sensible midwestern fella is seems silly to say this, but 500,000 isn't the same for everyone and won't give people the same quality of life and opportunities. Large families, location, etc...many factors play into it. I don't think there is anything wrong with making more than that, I say make what the market will pay you, it is on you and your soul/karma if you don't try to do some good with the extra you have.
Einstein isn't the rule, he is the giant exception to innovation.
Actually, Einstein explains why socialism can work much better than I ever could, so I should probably just refer you to this... http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
If everyone was as enlightened as Einstein it probably could, but the beauty/ugliness of life is we are all different no matter how much we are all the same.
But there is just one more thing I want to add... I think that when we have ensured just compensation for all workers, we will then know the true value of all products and services on the market, and the market can take care of the rest. We don't need to micromanage every aspect of business.
I just don't possibly know how that would happen. There is no just compensation. It isn't a thing, it is an abstract concept based on an individuals' idea of social justice...Wouldn't you agree that most people in urban areas probably don't value farmers as high as they should, people in rich suburbs don't fully understand the value of a great inner-city teacher...How could they? Would we really want to pay all cops the same thing? there are vastly different worths to each county, city, state, etc...
It is a noble pursuit to believe in the idea that things can become more fair and government is what will bring that fairness...it isn't that simple, there is no magic wand...Society and Nature would have to be 'just' and decide to change it, and unfortunately for the theory, nature is far from just, and society has already spoken and it created the monstrosity we have now.
who knows, before we go down the road of just compensation equations we should probably cut the head off the snake first and get corporate influence out of government policy and get the people back in charge of the free market through choice and competition.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
I first want to apologize for probably being a bit of a dickhead. But at the same time, I still don't think what you're saying makes much sense.
You were using an example of an arbitrary amount of money... a million dollars... which is pointless, because obviously it's not feasible to give everyone that much money. There's no reason to do that either, and it doesn't compare to what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about giving people unearned money but determining how much money people should earn. I think we should use a complex formula to determine to the best of our ability what just compensation means for each job, and considering the technology we've come up with, I think enough of us are smart enough to figure it out. It's not going to be an exact science, but social science never is.
If a person wants more than approximately $500,000 per year to make important advances that have real value, then frankly, I think such a person is just being greedy. $500K a year is still a shit ton of money. Albert Einstein lived a middle class life, and think of all he accomplished. Einstein was also a socialist, by the way.
Actually, Einstein explains why socialism can work much better than I ever could, so I should probably just refer you to this... http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
But there is just one more thing I want to add... I think that when we have ensured just compensation for all workers, we will then know the true value of all products and services on the market, and the market can take care of the rest. We don't need to micromanage every aspect of business.
That is it, in a sentence. :thumbup:
Define corporatism in a sentence. I don't think you'll find that to be so easy.
No apologies necessary, I don't take it personally, I have discussed things with you prior and never have I found you to be dickheaded.
The feasibility of giving everyone a million dollars is as realistic as being able to force wages on jobs and not have highly negative impacts. When you force companies to make the livable wage 'x', they will only hire the people they can afford. What you are suggesting could create vast unemployment, or it could have inflationary effects on pricing. Artificial price controls would be necessary to keep things the same, and then you have a whole other ball of wax.
My point with the million dollar thing is, we would all be better off if everyone received a million dollars tomorrow, but the negatives associated with that would be terrible. The same can be said for any artificial value on employment. For good or bad, people and products are only monetarily worth what someone is willing to pay.
Poverty isn't about a specific dollar value, it is about the purchasing power of the dollars you have. The market can never decide the prices without them finding the level of supply v. demand. If we cap prices, or tell people what they can charge and then tell them how much they have to pay every employee we better also tell them they have to retain all current employees and hire new people every year. A business cannot operate properly...not all CEO's make 20 times what their line workers make.
It is a noble thought, but that formula would be forever changing and nearly impossible to calculate. It doesn't need to be exact, but it does need to be possible
I don't want, or think for that matter, a group of gov't workers or a formula no matter how complex can ever accurately tell me what I am worth and what I need. I don't think my life choices should have to be dictated by someone else's idea of what I need. I don't really think that is selfish, I want everyone to have that.
But that is your definition, and again why I said that people always WANT to tell other people what they NEED. to me, being a sensible midwestern fella is seems silly to say this, but 500,000 isn't the same for everyone and won't give people the same quality of life and opportunities. Large families, location, etc...many factors play into it. I don't think there is anything wrong with making more than that, I say make what the market will pay you, it is on you and your soul/karma if you don't try to do some good with the extra you have.
Einstein isn't the rule, he is the giant exception to innovation.
If everyone was as enlightened as Einstein it probably could, but the beauty/ugliness of life is we are all different no matter how much we are all the same.
I just don't possibly know how that would happen. There is no just compensation. It isn't a thing, it is an abstract concept based on an individuals' idea of social justice...Wouldn't you agree that most people in urban areas probably don't value farmers as high as they should, people in rich suburbs don't fully understand the value of a great inner-city teacher...How could they? Would we really want to pay all cops the same thing? there are vastly different worths to each county, city, state, etc...
It is a noble pursuit to believe in the idea that things can become more fair and government is what will bring that fairness...it isn't that simple, there is no magic wand...Society and Nature would have to be 'just' and decide to change it, and unfortunately for the theory, nature is far from just, and society has already spoken and it created the monstrosity we have now.
who knows, before we go down the road of just compensation equations we should probably cut the head off the snake first and get corporate influence out of government policy and get the people back in charge of the free market through choice and competition.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan