On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:

Productivity has surged not because the people are working harder. Quite the contrary. They are working less because of advancements made by peop0le who went to school and found an easier and better way to do the same thing with less work. Are you telling me that working on a production line making cars is harder now than when Henry Ford came up with the idea of the production line? Yet we sure are making a lot more cars with less effort.

I definitely agree people should earn a decent living. But some jobs are not for raising a family. Such jobs would be working at McDonalds asking if you want fries with that. Sorry no skill involved just time and a Doctor's time while at work is worth more than a person working at a McDonalds. Sorry that is just fact.

Actually, hours worked is increasing- at least among white collar jobs where salaried employees don't get paid overtime.

It would also be nice if there were enough jobs available so people raising families didn't have to work minimum wage jobs. Maybe if they were managers? Except McDonalds managers average $43,222 a year. (McDonald's CEO makes $8.75 million, 580 times the wage of his minimum-wage employees, or more than 200 times that of his average manager- and McDonald's profits are down 21% lately.)

So what exactly is your point? Is it that McDonald's managers should make $8.75 million a year or should the CEO of McDonald's make $43,222 a year?

Some countries limit CEO pay to 12 or 20 times what their lowest-paid employee makes. (I don't know if this includes stock options as well.) France caps state-owned businesses from paying their CEOs more than $560,000 (give or take, depending on exchange rate.)

You may argue that this means the companies won't be able to get the "best talent." And that's valid- because CEOs in America have been paid outrageous sums for years now. On the other hand, salary caps also prevent executives from raiding the profits of companies. Don't tell me that doesn't happen, either- so-called "golden parachutes" mean that executives can fail, and fail miserably, and still receive millions of dollars when they step down. One wonders how shareholders can justify such packages at the expense of profits.

From a socio-economic standpoint, a CEO salary cap would greatly reduce income inequality, a factor that's been linked to a lot of less-desirable social problems, including crime.

On Jul 14, 2015, tommy wrote:
What logic is there in getting a head?

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:
I can not believe I read here that some feel that a person should only be allowed to make so much money. Can you really justify such a concept?


My God. At one end you want to tell us that we must give everyone a wage so they can live comfortably regardless of their contributions to their employer. Then you want to limit the salary of those who grow a company. Are you people deranged? Where is the logic in this train of thought?

With this logic what would be the purpose of trying to get ahead? What motivation would there be? Would everyone just be entitled? Can you imagine the work ethic?

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

On Jul 14, 2015, RNK wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
There will always be those at or near the bottom that are jealous of those at the top. I don't hear anybody crying about Harry Reid becoming a millionaire after he was elected as a government official. Or, for that matter, most politicians.

? I don't think anyone (except another politician), anywhere, is happy that politicians are making money by exploiting their positions. Really off topic, imo. Maybe you missed it, but there has been quite a bit of buzz lately about a former President who charged a wounded veterans group $100,000 to speak before a group of veterans--veterans who were wounded by his very misguided and reckless policies which sent them needlessly into battle in the first place. Don't know anyone who's defending that. But maybe I travel in the wrong circles.

.......AND...... Hillary Clinton charges $200,000 to speak at an underprivileged boy/girls club then leaves without even saying hello to the boys and girls. They ALL are scumbags...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-......eon.html

On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:
I can not believe I read here that some feel that a person should only be allowed to make so much money. Can you really justify such a concept?


My God. At one end you want to tell us that we must give everyone a wage so they can live comfortably regardless of their contributions to their employer. Then you want to limit the salary of those who grow a company. Are you people deranged? Where is the logic in this train of thought?

With this logic what would be the purpose of trying to get ahead? What motivation would there be? Would everyone just be entitled? Can you imagine the work ethic?

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

Pay for elected representatives is a red herring. A Congressman's official salary is $174,000. The Vice President makes $233,000. The President makes $400,000. It's a moot point, since almost every politician on the national scene is already independently wealthy anyway.

On the other hand, let's look at the economy. Let's skip McDonalds for a moment (I'll come back to it.) Instead, let's look at Larry Ellison, the CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc. What is a single person going to do with his 2014 salary of $67.25 million? Buy a new wide-screen TV, a new car, a new suit or three, pay his mortgage and living expenses (including salaries for his hired help), tithe or donate some to charity, and then stick the rest of it into stocks and other investments that will in all likelyhood just sit there. (He's certainly not spending it all, otherwise he wouldn't be worth $54 billion.)

His company has 132,365 employees. They're payed well- average salary is $73,000 (though Larry's income is roughly 900 times that.) Let's, hypothetically speaking, of course, give Larry a salary of $2.25 million instead (only 30 times the average of his employees,) and give the rest to his employees as a bonus. That's only about $490 a person- a small bonus, but, speaking as someone with a middle class income myself, I bet the majority of it will be spent- 132,365 people can find a lot more uses for $500 than one man can find for $65 million.

Which of these stimulates the US economy more, do you think?

Going back to McDonalds, what if their CEO made only $750,000 and you handed the rest to the company's 400,000 non-franchise employees? What if I handed you that $20, unconditionally? You're probably going to put that right back into the economy, aren't you?

This is why income inequality matters. It's not about jealousy. It's about strengthening the position of the lower and middle class, and by doing so, allowing them the luxury of spending more money and further strengthening the economy.

On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

Pay for elected representatives is a red herring. A Congressman's official salary is $174,000. The Vice President makes $233,000. The President makes $400,000. It's a moot point, since almost every politician on the national scene is already independently wealthy anyway.

On the other hand, let's look at the economy. Let's skip McDonalds for a moment (I'll come back to it.) Instead, let's look at Larry Ellison, the CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc. What is a single person going to do with his 2014 salary of $67.25 million? Buy a new wide-screen TV, a new car, a new suit or three, pay his mortgage and living expenses (including salaries for his hired help), tithe or donate some to charity, and then stick the rest of it into stocks and other investments that will in all likelyhood just sit there. (He's certainly not spending it all, otherwise he wouldn't be worth $54 billion.)

His company has 132,365 employees. They're payed well- average salary is $73,000 (though Larry's income is roughly 900 times that.) Let's, hypothetically speaking, of course, give Larry a salary of $2.25 million instead (only 30 times the average of his employees,) and give the rest to his employees as a bonus. That's only about $490 a person- a small bonus, but, speaking as someone with a middle class income myself, I bet the majority of it will be spent- 132,365 people can find a lot more uses for $500 than one man can find for $65 million.

Which of these stimulates the US economy more, do you think?

Going back to McDonalds, what if their CEO made only $750,000 and you handed the rest to the company's 400,000 non-franchise employees? What if I handed you that $20, unconditionally? You're probably going to put that right back into the economy, aren't you?

This is why income inequality matters. It's not about jealousy. It's about strengthening the position of the lower and middle class, and by doing so, allowing them the luxury of spending more money and further strengthening the economy.

On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:
Do you realize the infinitesimal amount of money you are talking about? It amounts to a lightening bug's rear as compared to the noonday sun as far as the economy is concerned.

You are blinded and so confused because you feel you are being cheated because other people are more capable of earning more money than yourself. Give it a rest already. This is America. You are in the land of opportunity. The only thing stopping you from earning more money is yourself. If you want to stay stuck where you are, it is your right to do so. But do not begrudge others from earning more money than you because they are ambitious. Also don't expect them to give you some of theirs. How much have you given those who make much less than yourself?

Instead of sitting at your computer and complaining about how unfair wages are. Go do something worth while and earn some more money. Sitting in front of the computer typing on a magic forum is not going to do it for you.

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

Pay for elected representatives is a red herring. A Congressman's official salary is $174,000. The Vice President makes $233,000. The President makes $400,000. It's a moot point, since almost every politician on the national scene is already independently wealthy anyway.

On the other hand, let's look at the economy. Let's skip McDonalds for a moment (I'll come back to it.) Instead, let's look at Larry Ellison, the CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc. What is a single person going to do with his 2014 salary of $67.25 million? Buy a new wide-screen TV, a new car, a new suit or three, pay his mortgage and living expenses (including salaries for his hired help), tithe or donate some to charity, and then stick the rest of it into stocks and other investments that will in all likelyhood just sit there. (He's certainly not spending it all, otherwise he wouldn't be worth $54 billion.)

His company has 132,365 employees. They're payed well- average salary is $73,000 (though Larry's income is roughly 900 times that.) Let's, hypothetically speaking, of course, give Larry a salary of $2.25 million instead (only 30 times the average of his employees,) and give the rest to his employees as a bonus. That's only about $490 a person- a small bonus, but, speaking as someone with a middle class income myself, I bet the majority of it will be spent- 132,365 people can find a lot more uses for $500 than one man can find for $65 million.

Which of these stimulates the US economy more, do you think?

Going back to McDonalds, what if their CEO made only $750,000 and you handed the rest to the company's 400,000 non-franchise employees? What if I handed you that $20, unconditionally? You're probably going to put that right back into the economy, aren't you?

This is why income inequality matters. It's not about jealousy. It's about strengthening the position of the lower and middle class, and by doing so, allowing them the luxury of spending more money and further strengthening the economy.

So your answer is a resounding yes. In the United States the government should control what one makes.

On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Why was I not surprised? Minimum wage no problem. What should be maximum? And where does the money go once you reach that maximum? To the government I bet huh?

Yes they always do what is best for the economy.