Politics Let Me Anger The Conservatives With This One

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
dviss1 said:
What about a maximum wage? I see Denny gnashing his teeth already.

Click to expand...

Not gonna watch.

If we want to artificially limit pay I've been saying 100 bucks an hour for years.

Brain surgeon gets 100 bucks and everyone else gets a number in relation to that value.

Janitor gets 5
Lawyer gets 2
Policeman gets 65

We can vote on who gets what.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Not gonna watch.

If we want to artificially limit pay I've been saying 100 bucks an hour for years.

Brain surgeon gets 100 bucks and everyone else gets a number in relation to that value.

Janitor gets 5
Lawyer gets 2
Policeman gets 65

We can vote on who gets what.
Click to expand...

You should watch it.
 
Ok, just watched it. Nope. We should make it so if you have a job you can't qualify for government assistance.

If Walmart can't hire someone because it isn't worth it maybe they'll pay more. If people would rather live on government assistance than work at Walmart they'll close the doors.

This is all too late anyway. There's going to be so much automation that tons of people who work now won't be able to find a job.
 
Walmart makes a fortune off food stamps. They ain't closing shit.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
Walmart makes a fortune off food stamps. They ain't closing shit.
Click to expand...
Then maybe they'll have to pay more to get employees to rake in the dough for them. Nobody is forcing them to work there.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the 100 million bucks isn't really anything but a number. . There isn't any gold to back it up, it's all a house of cards waiting to fall. Enjoy it while it lasts.
 
NO problem with a maximum wage for EMPLOYEES.

Owners who invented their product, should make as much as they can. Its their idea and their right to profit as much as they can from it.
 
Orion Bailey said:
NO problem with a maximum wage for EMPLOYEES.

Owners who invented their product, should make as much as they can. Its their idea and their right to profit as much as they can from it.
Click to expand...

Even if doing so harms society/humankind generally?

Hypothetically, I mean - you probably wouldn't be ok with the inventor of fentanyl selling it in grade schools, right? So there are limits?

barfo
 
Jessie is dang close to a moron.

But in any case our system already does limit people without involving government.
I mean look at the CEO of Montgomery Ward. Once the retailer that everyone knew. They even search for the products while tending to personal business.
They don't make much money now though. Kmart is about gone, as is Sears.
Is the CEO of J.C. Penny's a fat cat these days?

WalMart is riding high, but some thing tells me they own way too much real estate. I don't suppose the volume would need to drop much and those property tax bills in all these cities would get real heavy.

Shoot a simple tariff on Chinese trifles might do it.

CEOs and owner that can't pay their property tax bill don't make much. Their workers don't get a fucking raise either.
 
MarAzul said:
Jessie is dang close to a moron.

But in any case our system already does limit people without involving government.
I mean look at the CEO of Montgomery Ward. Once the retailer that everyone knew. They even search for the products while tending to personal business.
They don't make much money now though. Kmart is about gone, as is Sears.
Is the CEO of J.C. Penny's a fat cat these days?

WalMart is riding high, but some thing tells me they own way too much real estate. I don't suppose the volume would need to drop much and those property tax bills in all these cities would get real heavy.

Shoot a simple tariff on Chinese trifles might do it.

CEOs and owner that can't pay their property tax bill don't make much. Their workers don't get a fucking raise either.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video?
 
MarAzul said:
Jessie is dang close to a moron.

But in any case our system already does limit people without involving government.
I mean look at the CEO of Montgomery Ward. Once the retailer that everyone knew. They even search for the products while tending to personal business.
They don't make much money now though. Kmart is about gone, as is Sears.
Is the CEO of J.C. Penny's a fat cat these days?

WalMart is riding high, but some thing tells me they own way too much real estate. I don't suppose the volume would need to drop much and those property tax bills in all these cities would get real heavy.

Shoot a simple tariff on Chinese trifles might do it.

CEOs and owner that can't pay their property tax bill don't make much. Their workers don't get a fucking raise either.
Click to expand...

You're babbling to yourself. If you want anyone to follow your reasoning, Sentence B should follow from A, C from B, D from C, etc. Continuity.
 
barfo said:
Even if doing so harms society/humankind generally?

Hypothetically, I mean - you probably wouldn't be ok with the inventor of fentanyl selling it in grade schools, right? So there are limits?

barfo
Click to expand...

Of course. Profits must be legally obtained on he up and up.
 
I wouldn't say it's the "stupidest" idea ever (don't get me wrong, it's pretty dumb, but...)

For instance, in the military and gov't there's a "max salary". In the NBA there's a "Max Salary". In most unions there's a "max salary".

Aside from the NBA (they got nowhere else to go!), you don't see the highest quality people stick around for the money. And if you don't have some other benefit in place ("sense of duty", fulfillment, etc.) you're not going to see a lot of rising talent stick around.

Put another way, FaceBook never becomes anything if Zuckerberg only ever makes 100k/yr off it, and every dime of profit goes to paying the entitlements of someone not working for the company. In this manner, I agree with much of Atlas.
 
But the video isn't about max salary, it's about living wage. If you work 40hrs a week you shouldn't need welfare.
 
The beauty of our system is that it rewards success, and by giving more money to the successful, you expect them to spread it around to some degree.

Zuckerberg may not make much of a salary at all (Gates' biggest salary was $1M his last few years at Microsoft). But if you took away his incentive, he surely wouldn't be worried about building a massive company with 100's of thousands of well treated/paid employees.

I know if I hit the max, I'd put in half effort because that's the incentive. The entire productivity and creativity of the nation would decline.

As far as the government, most people don't serve for a lifetime (though many do). If you look at the federal government, most of the richest neighborhoods in the US are suburbs of DC. People leave government to get paid much more because they have some (undue and improper) influence or knowledge that gives an unfair competitive advantage.

As far as the military, you get other benefits besides pay (GI Bill, VA loans, VA, housing, health care, pension, etc.) if you serve long enough. You can retire from the military at age 38 with a nice pension to add to a 2nd career elsewhere. It's quite attractive in a lot of respects. It's also a highly respectable career and career choice. It also is a situation where you don't play by the same rules (of law, etc.). And you have a strong kind of discipline that doesn't suggest that the generals (making the max) are paying the entitlements of a bunch of loafers.

Note I said "one of the stupidest" and not "THE stupidest."
 
I find it funny the small things Americans complain about yet there are 3rd world countries where people struggle a million times more than even the poorest here. Now I am not conservative but this is one thing I don't agree on plus how the fuck would you even get that to work out? I like Jesse Ventura too but I simply disagree on this one. Yeah in a perfect world everybody lives equally and blah blah blah but this world is far from perfect
 
Denny Crane said:
As far as the military, you get other benefits besides pay (GI Bill, VA loans, VA, housing, health care, pension, etc.) if you serve long enough. You can retire from the military at age 38 with a nice pension to add to a 2nd career elsewhere. It's quite attractive in a lot of respects. It's also a highly respectable career and career choice. It also is a situation where you don't play by the same rules (of law, etc.). And you have a strong kind of discipline that doesn't suggest that the generals (making the max) are paying the entitlements of a bunch of loafers.
Click to expand...
I left more stock valuation in Amazon unvested on the table when I left than I made in my 5 years on the submarine. At Boeing, the difference in raises between me (who had just won an award and was nominated for a Boeing Best Practice) and someone who was about to be fired was $7 per pay period, because we were on union scales. Even right now, as I'm about to go do a 6-month project in uniform, I'm taking a pay cut to do so. As you said, for me there are benefits outside of the pure paycheck (and thankfully, I'm in a position where I can do so without hurting my family), but let's be clear: it's not the "best" 40% of the military that stay in after their first enlistment or obligation. It's not the "best" qualified person who is working as a DoD civilian or in the IRS or VA. But the people I hired at Amazon (for instance) were among the best of personnel in their field, and part of the reason is b/c we could compensate more than many places. There's no mechanism to take someone who's top of their field and make it even remotely competitive for someone to work in gov't or the military. There are some very good people who stay in. But it's not b/c the military can pay them what they could make "on the outside"...it's for those other things you mention like discipline, sense of duty, etc.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I left more stock valuation in Amazon unvested on the table when I left than I made in my 5 years on the submarine. At Boeing, the difference in raises between me (who had just won an award and was nominated for a Boeing Best Practice) and someone who was about to be fired was $7 per pay period, because we were on union scales. Even right now, as I'm about to go do a 6-month project in uniform, I'm taking a pay cut to do so. As you said, for me there are benefits outside of the pure paycheck (and thankfully, I'm in a position where I can do so without hurting my family), but let's be clear: it's not the "best" 40% of the military that stay in after their first enlistment or obligation. It's not the "best" qualified person who is working as a DoD civilian or in the IRS or VA. But the people I hired at Amazon (for instance) were among the best of personnel in their field, and part of the reason is b/c we could compensate more than many places. There's no mechanism to take someone who's top of their field and make it even remotely competitive for someone to work in gov't or the military. There are some very good people who stay in. But it's not b/c the military can pay them what they could make "on the outside"...it's for those other things you mention like discipline, sense of duty, etc.
Click to expand...
What's your new military project? Sweeping the floor or licking the windows?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-people-were-furious/?utm_term=.bf50d566c6a6
 
BrianFromWA said:
I left more stock valuation in Amazon unvested on the table when I left than I made in my 5 years on the submarine. At Boeing, the difference in raises between me (who had just won an award and was nominated for a Boeing Best Practice) and someone who was about to be fired was $7 per pay period, because we were on union scales. Even right now, as I'm about to go do a 6-month project in uniform, I'm taking a pay cut to do so. As you said, for me there are benefits outside of the pure paycheck (and thankfully, I'm in a position where I can do so without hurting my family), but let's be clear: it's not the "best" 40% of the military that stay in after their first enlistment or obligation. It's not the "best" qualified person who is working as a DoD civilian or in the IRS or VA. But the people I hired at Amazon (for instance) were among the best of personnel in their field, and part of the reason is b/c we could compensate more than many places. There's no mechanism to take someone who's top of their field and make it even remotely competitive for someone to work in gov't or the military. There are some very good people who stay in. But it's not b/c the military can pay them what they could make "on the outside"...it's for those other things you mention like discipline, sense of duty, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's necessarily the best who stay, though I hope those at the very top are the very best.

I wasn't suggesting that people in the military (or government) are doing better than in the private sector. Until they leave :)
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't think it's necessarily the best who stay, though I hope those at the very top are the very best.

I wasn't suggesting that people in the military (or government) are doing better than in the private sector. Until they leave :)
Click to expand...
The very top are very rarely even the very best of who stuck around. Look at Petraeus vs., say, Wesley Clark. Carter Ham vs. Jim Amos. Hell, Chaos 6 is the SECDEF, and was passed over for Commandant partially b/c Obama and Panetta hated him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Natebishop3
This would never happen in the US
Replies
0
Views
209
Natebishop3
Natebishop3
MarAzul
Response to Merkley's support letter for the Minimum wage.
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
barfo
barfo
MarAzul
Minimum Wage message to the Senator.
Replies
5
Views
341
porkchopexpress
porkchopexpress
BigGameDamian
$15 an hour in Portland OR?
Replies
12
Views
952
MarAzul
MarAzul
Denny Crane
Libertarians Vs. Conservatives
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
MarAzul
MarAzul

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top