Maximum Wage

jeffbr · November 2006

soulsinging wrote:

there is no difference. the government did not set a minimum wage. the people did through their representatives. that is why one is more acceptable. it is desired by the majority of the people. the other is not. do i have to explain how representative democracy works?

So if the majority of the people what to cap salaries at $40,000, or better yet set a standard wage which everyone makes at $40,000 you have no problem with that since it is the will of the masses?

farfromglorified · November 2006

soulsinging wrote:

this is all bullshit. employers can, and do, take their business elsewhere if they feel the work is not worth the wages they have to pay.

True. Would you like me to do this again under the pretense that I believe government should force American companies to keep jobs here?

that's why we have outsourcing. nobody is "forcing" them to pay those wages, becos if they dont want to, they dont have to open a business. or they can open it in a state that did not pass a wage increase.

If no one is forcing them, what would happen I opened a grocery store right now and paid my workers $4/hour?

you may argue there is a federal minimum wage. you're right. how'd it get there? the people voted it into effect. you want to repeal it? see how long you last in office. minimum wage is there becos americans want it there.

Of course. Can I hide behind such an excuse for every crime or misdeed in American history? Or corporate history?

there is no maximum wage becos americans do NOT want it there. that's democracy... where (thankfully) your solo, abstract, unrealistic ideology cannot trump the beliefs and common sense of the masses.

So the lynch mob becomes the ideal? Weren't you just telling me about the violent end-game of anarchy?

also, you dont like the federal minimum wage? move to taiwan and start your business. nobody FORCES you to do business here. see how successful a business in taiwan is... where the workers do not earn enough to buy your product.

You're entirely right -- no one FORCES me to do business here. Are you suggesting that slavery would have been justified if a) the masses wanted it and b) we asked the slaves nicely to come here first?

norm · November 2006

Drew263 wrote:

Surely this is a joke. If you make less than $50k in this country with all the opportunities..you're a loser and that's not my fault.

$50k is chump change.

How are you able to type with your head that far up your ass?

GarrettSocling · November 2006

$50,000 a person per year is a lot, but some people are highly skilled. I was earlier this week thinking of a similar thing, but thinking (for some random reason) that $3 mill a year was a shitload of money, more than enough for anyone, and should be the cap, beyond which it is taxed 100%.

Now, looking at $50k a year, I'm thinking $500k is still a COMPLETELY ABSURD amount of money, considering I got by just fine on $20k a year for the past six or so. This year business is finally flying and I'm making more, and I have so much money left over its crazy. Paying off school debt, my car, credit cards, everything, with lots left over for savings. Making less than $50k a year. Now, building a house doesn't seem like an impossible goal.

$50k is nice, very plump. $500k is very very rich. $5 million is fucking absurd. $50 million and more? A crime against humanity.

Heineken Helen · November 2006

jeffbr wrote:

Thanks, FFG. The thread was equally entertaining, enlightening and frightening to me. I hope that anyone who was appalled by your suggestion of a wage cap is also equally appalled by the notion of a minimum wage. I know I am.

And I hope that people who promote wage controls understand exactly what it is they are endorsing.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!! What is so appalling about a minimum wage? I really don't get it. Some of the right wing ideas here are genuinely foreign to me. Please explain where you're coming from regarding such an extreme opinion? And this is directed to jeffbr... not FFG who I'm sure may have some decent points but he makes my head hurt

jeffbr · November 2006

Since you didn't seem to be appalled by FFG's thread, and unwittingly played along initially, I'm not surprised you can't see how a minimum wage is theft from others just as a maximum wage is. A minimum wage is an artificial payment of service rather than an exchange for service based on actual value of said labor, just as a maximum wage would be.

newagehippie · November 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm very serious. What right do you have to earn more than $50,000 per year without the rest of us approving?

because some of us owe that much or more in student loans because we decided to get an education so we could benefit ourselves and not have to take handout from those who did.....

Heineken Helen · November 2006

jeffbr wrote:

Since you didn't seem to be appalled by FFG's thread, and unwittingly played along initially, I'm not surprised you can't see how a minimum wage is theft from others just as a maximum wage is. A minimum wage is an artificial payment of service rather than an exchange for service based on actual value of said labor, just as a maximum wage would be.

Well the lack of a minimum wage is nothing short of slavery... I don't see how it's STEALING. You say the wage should be based on the actual value of said labour? Do you really think there are some people in the world worth LESS than the minimum wage?

I didn't 'play along unwittingly', I knew FFG was taking the piss... but I agreed with his piss taking points.

onelongsong · November 2006

ARE YOU CRAZY? i was making $50K in the early 70's. cap earnings and you cap ambition.

know1 · November 2006

newagehippie wrote:

because some of us owe that much or more in student loans because we decided to get an education so we could benefit ourselves and not have to take handout from those who did.....

Student loans are a choice (and a very poor one if you ask me). There are plenty of people who do it without them.

farfromglorified · November 2006

Heineken Helen wrote:

Well the lack of a minimum wage is nothing short of slavery...

The lack of a minimum wage is short of slavery by one very key facet --- forced labor. The objective difference between a slave and an employee is not the amount of money they are paid but rather whether or not the person is working against their will and whether or not the wage they receive was agreed to on their own terms or on someone else's. If I bind you, gag you, drag you off and force you to work in my field against your will and do not let you leave, you are a slave, even if I pay you $40 / hour. If you come to me, ask for a job, and I offer you $4 / hour and you willingly accept and have every opportunity to sever the arrangement at your discretion, you are not a slave.

Everyday in this country and others, many people willingly agree to exchange their labor with another for less than the minimum wage that is set. They do so willingly, and they do so for their own purposes and interests. In your world, those people and their employers are criminals for no other reason than that their mutual agreement fails to meet your standards. Now, who is the slavedriver here?

newagehippie · November 2006

know1 wrote:

Student loans are a choice (and a very poor one if you ask me). There are plenty of people who do it without them.

Not all people can do with out them. Not everyone has means of money to pay for college without them. And if you think that putting yourself in debt (at a low interest rate) to get an education in order to better yourself is a poor choice, then I my friend have made a poor choice. And before you go on the tangent about making better grades and getting scholarships, I had plenty of scholarships, but still had to take out loans as well as work to make ends meet.

farfromglorified · November 2006

newagehippie -- the post of mine that you responded to was completely facetious. You have every right in the world to make whatever your labor is worth to anyone who would pay the price, regardless of your reasons.

Heineken Helen · November 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

The lack of a minimum wage is short of slavery by one very key facet --- forced labor. The objective difference between a slave and an employee is not the amount of money they are paid but rather whether or not the person is working against their will and whether or not the wage they receive was agreed to on their own terms or on someone else's. If I bind you, gag you, drag you off and force you to work in my field against your will and do not let you leave, you are a slave, even if I pay you $40 / hour. If you come to me, ask for a job, and I offer you $4 / hour and you willingly accept and have every opportunity to sever the arrangement at your discretion, you are not a slave.

Everyday in this country and others, many people willingly agree to exchange their labor with another for less than the minimum wage that is set. They do so willingly, and they do so for their own purposes and interests. In your world, those people and their employers are criminals for no other reason than that their mutual agreement fails to meet your standards. Now, who is the slavedriver here?

Well in this instance it's certainly not ME!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, well let's refer to it as 'sweat shops' rather than 'slave labour'... for an employer to take advantage of a person knowing it's that choice or DIE... well I'm sorry but I'm incapable of understanding that kind of greed. You can explain it to me all you want but I still see it as similar to slavery.

farfromglorified · November 2006

Heineken Helen wrote:

Well in this instance it's certainly not ME!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, well let's refer to it as 'sweat shops' rather than 'slave labour'... for an employer to take advantage of a person knowing it's that choice or DIE... well I'm sorry but I'm incapable of understanding that kind of greed. You can explain it to me all you want but I still see it as similar to slavery.

Ok, this is fair. Thank you for amending the statement.

Sweat shop labor is similar to slavery, particularly since the sweat shop labor is often directly forced labor (making it slavery) or indirectly forced through circumstance (making it quasi-slavery).

I'm not sure why you equate "lack of a minimum wage" with sweat shops though. Removing the minimum wage doesn't give employers a) the right to force people to work in sweat shops or b) force individuals to choose sweat shops.

If, in the United States, the minimum wage was removed, certainly very low wage factories would emerge, particularly in places with high unemployment or low-educated workforces. My basic questions to you would be:

a) Why is this, by default, a bad thing?
b) Why is this, by default, any different than simply pushing those sweat shops overseas, particularly to nations with absolutely no concept of basic human rights?

Furthermore, do you not see the benefit of keeping those jobs in your home country where exposure and oversight of the conditions those workers operate in would be far greater??? We in the West continue to pass more and more legislation "protecting" workers, but at the same time continue to buy more and more products from workers in absolutely squalid conditions. Do such "workers rights" only matter when we can pretend those workers don't exist since they're in another country, rather than in our own backyard?

Heineken Helen · November 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok, this is fair. Thank you for amending the statement.

Sweat shop labor is similar to slavery, particularly since the sweat shop labor is often directly forced labor (making it slavery) or indirectly forced through circumstance (making it quasi-slavery).

I'm not sure why you equate "lack of a minimum wage" with sweat shops though. Removing the minimum wage doesn't give employers a) the right to force people to work in sweat shops or b) force individuals to choose sweat shops.

If, in the United States, the minimum wage was removed, certainly very low wage factories would emerge, particularly in places with high unemployment or low-educated workforces. My basic questions to you would be:

a) Why is this, by default, a bad thing?
b) Why is this, by default, any different than simply pushing those sweat shops overseas, particularly to nations with absolutely no concept of basic human rights?

Furthermore, do you not see the benefit of keeping those jobs in your home country where exposure and oversight of the conditions those workers operate in would be far greater??? We in the West continue to pass more and more legislation "protecting" workers, but at the same time continue to buy more and more products from workers in absolutely squalid conditions. Do such "workers rights" only matter when we can pretend those workers don't exist since they're in another country, rather than in our own backyard?

a. if I need to explain why working conditions being similar to sweat shops is a bad thing, well then there's not much point conversing with you further.

b. You're right, it's absolutely no different at all and you actually raise a good point about keeping this in our own country so we can protect them BUT workers everywhere should be protected... employers only want a profit and generally care little about those who MAKE this profit for them. I try, where I can to only buy Irish products and avoid products made in countries where sweat shops exist.

Eliot Rosewater · November 2006

soulsinging wrote:

make it $100,000 and im with you.

Yeah, me too...there's plenty to go around. A $50K salary wouldn't allow me to follow PJ for an entire tour, which is clearly my #1 priority in life.

farfromglorified · November 2006

Heineken Helen wrote:

a. if I need to explain why working conditions being similar to sweat shops is a bad thing, well then there's not much point conversing with you further.

Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Imagine a low-wage factory where workers are paid, say, $2 / hour but the employer has no right to force people to work there or stay there. Why, by default, is that a bad thing?

b. You're right, it's absolutely no different at all and you actually raise a good point about keeping this in our own country so we can protect them BUT workers everywhere should be protected... employers only want a profit and generally care little about those who MAKE this profit for them. I try, where I can to only buy Irish products and avoid products made in countries where sweat shops exist.

And that's a great choice you're making! I wish more people would make similar choices, but their choices aren't really my business until they start harming me.

See, there's a problem here though. You keep referring to "protecting" workers, and that's quite noble. But you're crossing a line when you start overriding someone's will. You're not protecting someone when you tell them they're not allowed to take the job of their choice, even if that job is low paying menial labor.

Protecting workers' rights means protecting their freedoms of choice first. Once you start violating that, you cannot use the word "protection".

Heineken Helen · November 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Imagine a low-wage factory where workers are paid, say, $2 / hour but the employer has no right to force people to work there or stay there. Why, by default, is that a bad thing?

BECAUSE.. this is usually the ONLY choice, or employers wouldnt' pay so little cos nobody would work for them. If something is the ONLY choice, is it actually a choice at all? Well, a choice usually signifies you have things to choose between, doesn't it?

farfromglorified wrote:

And that's a great choice you're making! I wish more people would make similar choices, but their choices aren't really my business until they start harming me.

See, there's a problem here though. You keep referring to "protecting" workers, and that's quite noble. But you're crossing a line when you start overriding someone's will. You're not protecting someone when you tell them they're not allowed to take the job of their choice, even if that job is low paying menial labor.

Protecting workers' rights means protecting their freedoms of choice first. Once you start violating that, you cannot use the word "protection".

Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers... NOT the employers.

farfromglorified · November 2006

Heineken Helen wrote:

BECAUSE.. this is usually the ONLY choice, or employers wouldnt' pay so little cos nobody would work for them. If something is the ONLY choice, is it actually a choice at all? Well, a choice usually signifies you have things to choose between, doesn't it?

Certainly! A choice does signify that. Slavery leaves you no other option. Removing the minimum wage, however, does not limit your options. It only limits your right to force someone else to pay you something greater than your worth to them.

Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers... NOT the employers.

Yes. Protecting workers means exactly that: protecting workers....NOT harming the employers. Do you not recognize that employers are workers too?

Maximum Wage

Comments

Categories