(03-14-2013 12:33 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

And that's the dillusion. My whole point is the models show that Americans' standard of living GOES DOWN as corporate profits rise. Sure they employ people and pay them a salary, but if they take more out of the system than they put back in, it's still a net loss.

So what is your solution?

Regulation.

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

And that's the dillusion. My whole point is the models show that Americans' standard of living GOES DOWN as corportate profits rise. Sure they employ people and pay them a salary, but if they take more out of the system than they put back in, it's still a net loss.

This is spot on. Moreover the net effect over time is that corporate profits drop. So in order to boost profits these corporations layoff more workers and/or cut salaries and the cycle continues.

(03-14-2013 12:36 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:33 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

And that's the dillusion. My whole point is the models show that Americans' standard of living GOES DOWN as corporate profits rise. Sure they employ people and pay them a salary, but if they take more out of the system than they put back in, it's still a net loss.

So what is your solution?

Regulation.

Specifically what?

(03-14-2013 01:17 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:36 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:33 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

And that's the dillusion. My whole point is the models show that Americans' standard of living GOES DOWN as corporate profits rise. Sure they employ people and pay them a salary, but if they take more out of the system than they put back in, it's still a net loss.

So what is your solution?

Regulation.

Specifically what?

Just give them another good bleeding!

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/3529

(03-14-2013 01:17 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:36 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:33 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

And that's the dillusion. My whole point is the models show that Americans' standard of living GOES DOWN as corporate profits rise. Sure they employ people and pay them a salary, but if they take more out of the system than they put back in, it's still a net loss.

So what is your solution?

Regulation.

Specifically what?

A progressive tax code, tax breaks for corporations where executive pay does not exceed a certain ratio to the average worker, a livable minimum wage. Im sure people smarter than me can come up with other ideas.

(03-14-2013 12:34 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  7) how many of you feel we need to add more tax codes?

I say base taxes rates not on arbitrary brackets of income, but on percentage of wealth held. Hold 90% of the nation's wealth? Then pay 90% of the nation's taxes. No wealth? No taxes. It's the opposite of a flat tax, it's progressive with infinate resolution.
[/quote]

This would have a terrible impact on savings and investment.

Say person A pays into a pension and at age 60 gets $50,000 per year.

Say person B saves via their 401k or IRA and at age 60 has enough to withdraw 4% each year and get $50,000.

You'd tax person A much less than person B. How is that reasonable or productive?

My wife and I live in a tiny house and drive old cars, trying to save for retirement. Your proposal would tax us more than someone who earns much more but doesn't save a penny.

(03-14-2013 03:25 PM)BobL Wrote:  A progressive tax code, tax breaks for corporations where executive pay does not exceed a certain ratio to the average worker, a livable minimum wage. Im sure people smarter than me can come up with other ideas.

I don't think we should ask the government to determine what a CEO should get paid. Do many of them get paid way too much? Sure. Should Washington, D.C. determine what they get paid? No way.

The minimum wage, by design, can't be a living wage. Do you want McDonalds to have to pay a high schooler a "living" wage?

(03-14-2013 10:53 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 03:25 PM)BobL Wrote:  A progressive tax code, tax breaks for corporations where executive pay does not exceed a certain ratio to the average worker, a livable minimum wage. Im sure people smarter than me can come up with other ideas.

I don't think we should ask the government to determine what a CEO should get paid. Do many of them get paid way too much? Sure. Should Washington, D.C. determine what they get paid? No way.

The minimum wage, by design, can't be a living wage. Do you want McDonalds to have to pay a high schooler a "living" wage?

Government should not determine a CEO's salary but they can offer incentives, tax breaks, for corporations that do have a reasonable pay scale. ..by reasonably maybe thats a ratios of median executive pay to median worker pay...

As for the minimum wage your point is valid...I am sure there are ways to get around paying a HS kid a living wage...

(03-15-2013 08:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 10:53 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 03:25 PM)BobL Wrote:  A progressive tax code, tax breaks for corporations where executive pay does not exceed a certain ratio to the average worker, a livable minimum wage. Im sure people smarter than me can come up with other ideas.

I don't think we should ask the government to determine what a CEO should get paid. Do many of them get paid way too much? Sure. Should Washington, D.C. determine what they get paid? No way.

The minimum wage, by design, can't be a living wage. Do you want McDonalds to have to pay a high schooler a "living" wage?

Government should not determine a CEO's salary but they can offer incentives, tax breaks, for corporations that do have a reasonable pay scale. ..by reasonably maybe thats a ratios of median executive pay to median worker pay...

As for the minimum wage your point is valid...I am sure there are ways to get around paying a HS kid a living wage...

THere are a LOT of ADULTS who live on(or near) minimum wage. THese are the jobs that have replaced all those factory jobs that have been lost. If you find a way to pay teens less than the adults working in those jobs, the companies will just hire kids and adult unemployment would grow. It is a very difficult situation. One thing though is that both groups would SPEND the extra money they have coming in which could then increase hiring up the line.

(03-15-2013 11:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 10:53 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 03:25 PM)BobL Wrote:  A progressive tax code, tax breaks for corporations where executive pay does not exceed a certain ratio to the average worker, a livable minimum wage. Im sure people smarter than me can come up with other ideas.

I don't think we should ask the government to determine what a CEO should get paid. Do many of them get paid way too much? Sure. Should Washington, D.C. determine what they get paid? No way.

The minimum wage, by design, can't be a living wage. Do you want McDonalds to have to pay a high schooler a "living" wage?

Government should not determine a CEO's salary but they can offer incentives, tax breaks, for corporations that do have a reasonable pay scale. ..by reasonably maybe thats a ratios of median executive pay to median worker pay...

As for the minimum wage your point is valid...I am sure there are ways to get around paying a HS kid a living wage...

THere are a LOT of ADULTS who live on(or near) minimum wage. THese are the jobs that have replaced all those factory jobs that have been lost. If you find a way to pay teens less than the adults working in those jobs, the companies will just hire kids and adult unemployment would grow. It is a very difficult situation. One thing though is that both groups would SPEND the extra money they have coming in which could then increase hiring up the line.

Define "ALOT" as a percentage of the work force.

(03-15-2013 08:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  Government should not determine a CEO's salary but they can offer incentives, tax breaks, for corporations that do have a reasonable pay scale. ..by reasonably maybe thats a ratios of median executive pay to median worker pay...

I believe the tax code was changed in the last ten (?) years to dramatically lower the write off of executive pay. Something like only the first million can be counted as a cost or something like that?

I just don't think we should leave it to the government any more to shape what is "reasonable." That is what the board of directors should be doing.

(03-14-2013 10:53 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I don't think we should ask the government to determine what a CEO should get paid. Do many of them get paid way too much? Sure. Should Washington, D.C. determine what they get paid? No way.

The minimum wage, by design, can't be a living wage. Do you want McDonalds to have to pay a high schooler a "living" wage?

I agree, which is why I have the believe that the minimum wage should be different for varying degrees a person has achieved.

for example (random numbers picked as a reference point, not what they necessarily could be):

no degree: $7/hr
high school degree/GED: $10/hr
associates/vocational degree: $13/hr
bachelors degree: $16/hr
masters degree: $19/hr
doctoral degree: $22/hr

Obviously companies could try to hire more high schoolers to lower their costs, but frankly, customer service drops with high school kids. Not to say there can't be bad service from adults.

(03-15-2013 03:00 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I agree, which is why I have the believe that the minimum wage should be different for varying degrees a person has achieved.

for example (random numbers picked as a reference point, not what they necessarily could be):

no degree: $7/hr
high school degree/GED: $10/hr
associates/vocational degree: $13/hr
bachelors degree: $16/hr
masters degree: $19/hr
doctoral degree: $22/hr

Obviously companies could try to hire more high schoolers to lower their costs, but frankly, customer service drops with high school kids. Not to say there can't be bad service from adults.

I understand what you are trying to do there, but I don't agree. By the above, you are assuming that everyone with a master's degree brings more value to the same job as someone with a bachelor's, etc. That isn't the case. The level of one's degree does not equate with value. By extension, not all master degrees are the same. Poli Sci is not the same as Mathemetics, etc.

A worker shouldn't be paid based on education level, they should paid based on the value they provide. What you suggest above parallels step increases, etc. seen in the education field. Should a kindergarten teacher with a doctorate (stretching the example) be paid more than a kindergarten teacher with a bachelor's? They are likely doing the same job, in just about the same way.

And, this would worsen the higher education problem we have in this country already, where ANY degree is viewed as more important than having the right degree or even the right non-college technical training.

(03-15-2013 03:38 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 03:00 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I agree, which is why I have the believe that the minimum wage should be different for varying degrees a person has achieved.

for example (random numbers picked as a reference point, not what they necessarily could be):

no degree: $7/hr
high school degree/GED: $10/hr
associates/vocational degree: $13/hr
bachelors degree: $16/hr
masters degree: $19/hr
doctoral degree: $22/hr

Obviously companies could try to hire more high schoolers to lower their costs, but frankly, customer service drops with high school kids. Not to say there can't be bad service from adults.

I understand what you are trying to do there, but I don't agree. By the above, you are assuming that everyone with a master's degree brings more value to the same job as someone with a bachelor's, etc. That isn't the case. The level of one's degree does not equate with value. By extension, not all master degrees are the same. Poli Sci is not the same as Mathemetics, etc.

A worker shouldn't be paid based on education level, they should paid based on the value they provide. What you suggest above parallels step increases, etc. seen in the education field. Should a kindergarten teacher with a doctorate (stretching the example) be paid more than a kindergarten teacher with a bachelor's? They are likely doing the same job, in just about the same way.

And, this would worsen the higher education problem we have in this country already, where ANY degree is viewed as more important than having the right degree or even the right non-college technical training.

I dont disagree with you. It's not a perfect system. I didn't factor in experience or merit at all, but it should be for all wages. Also factoring degrees that correlate with the job.

I'd hope it be more of a motivational factor for people to finish their educations. I'd also think people would prefer to pursue a career path that interests them. If you get an advanced degree and end up as a line cook at a taco bell, obviously I'd put them in the high school degree bracket.

(03-15-2013 11:45 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  Government should not determine a CEO's salary but they can offer incentives, tax breaks, for corporations that do have a reasonable pay scale. ..by reasonably maybe thats a ratios of median executive pay to median worker pay...

I believe the tax code was changed in the last ten (?) years to dramatically lower the write off of executive pay. Something like only the first million can be counted as a cost or something like that?

I just don't think we should leave it to the government any more to shape what is "reasonable." That is what the board of directors should be doing.

The board of most companies are made up of other executives. They look out for their own.

(03-15-2013 11:39 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 11:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  [quote='GeorgeBorkFan' pid='9094948' dateline='1363319612']
[quote='BobL' pid='9092405' dateline='1363292754']

A progressive tax code, tax breaks for corporations where executive pay does not exceed a certain ratio to the average worker, a livable minimum wage. Im sure people smarter than me can come up with other ideas.

I don't think we should ask the government to determine what a CEO should get paid. Do many of them get paid way too much? Sure. Should Washington, D.C. determine what they get paid? No way.

The minimum wage, by design, can't be a living wage. Do you want McDonalds to have to pay a high schooler a "living" wage?

Government should not determine a CEO's salary but they can offer incentives, tax breaks, for corporations that do have a reasonable pay scale. ..by reasonably maybe thats a ratios of median executive pay to median worker pay...

As for the minimum wage your point is valid...I am sure there are ways to get around paying a HS kid a living wage...

THere are a LOT of ADULTS who live on(or near) minimum wage. THese are the jobs that have replaced all those factory jobs that have been lost. If you find a way to pay teens less than the adults working in those jobs, the companies will just hire kids and adult unemployment would grow. It is a very difficult situation. One thing though is that both groups would SPEND the extra money they have coming in which could then increase hiring up the line.
[

Not doing well with copy paste iPhone. My apologies. Below is a link to BLS stats
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htm

(03-15-2013 04:52 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 11:45 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I just don't think we should leave it to the government any more to shape what is "reasonable." That is what the board of directors should be doing.

The board of most companies are made up of other executives. They look out for their own.

To me, and to GBF, what is important is the the Board of Directors are private individuals of whom I can elect not to support through my stock purchase. If my influence wanes, I can pull my stock and move on. However, if the Government is in charge, I do not have that opportunity, voting be damned.......

Perhaps it's a bit sad for me to say that I trust multimillionaire capitalist investors more than I trust the Government? Well, what I do know is that people are losing faith in all sorts of institutions and it's not hard to see why. The only way to fix this is to build trust up again. That takes honesty and time, neither of which government nor business seem to be currently good at.

(03-18-2013 10:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 04:52 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 11:45 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I just don't think we should leave it to the government any more to shape what is "reasonable." That is what the board of directors should be doing.

The board of most companies are made up of other executives. They look out for their own.

To me, and to GBF, what is important is the the Board of Directors are private individuals of whom I can elect not to support through my stock purchase. If my influence wanes, I can pull my stock and move on. However, if the Government is in charge, I do not have that opportunity, voting be damned.......

Perhaps it's a bit sad for me to say that I trust multimillionaire capitalist investors more than I trust the Government? Well, what I do know is that people are losing faith in all sorts of institutions and it's not hard to see why. The only way to fix this is to build trust up again. That takes honesty and time, neither of which government nor business seem to be currently good at.

I never saif the government should be "in charge". Providing incentive however I see as fitting.