I considered this as an add-on to the cost of living thread, but its tangential at best - and IMO deserves more space than the limited lifecycle left in that 300+ dinosaur.
For me, this is wrong. I'm against socialiasm in its basic sense, but the extremes shown in the video are an as-bad or worse problem to me. What's the real difference between this and feudalism? Some ephemeral notion of freedom ... ?
Umm infi, most of the people at the bottom are working, they simply dont get paid enough. And the people are the top, either dont pay enough tax, or get paid too much.
let's take as much money from people who work into the hands of people who don't work. it's the only fair thing to do.
Again this is a comedy-funny statement; if you were a drive by reader your comment could be taken to mean "the people with the least money are the only ones that work". Of course those of us who read your comments regularly know you mean "the wealthy are the only ones at work".
Your bon mots are just sounding increasingly Ayn Randian :(
sometimes I think imagine how great the world will be when robots are doing all our work
but then I realise the 1% only allow us to live in order to serve their society, if robots were doing our work, they'd probably just have us killed off
robots are doing some of our work even today, and I think people at the bottom ARE being killed off to make up for it
Entrepreneurialism and innovation require capital to get started, so I suspect that uneven wealth distribution is harmful to capitalism.
If it becomes a situation where people with industry experience and ideas, have to beg for funding from wealthy benefactors, on revenue sharing terms set by those with a hold on everything, I don't see many feeling that it is worth their time as opposed to the idea of controlling their own destiny (owning their own business, etc), nor people being confident in involving others in the risk - who may want a payout even after failure.
Of course, as usual, I expect many of those who were born into privilege are going to be blind of the realities of how difficult it is to make one's own way, and will spout fairy tale understandings of the real world where if people just pull themselves up by their bootstraps more, they can overcome any wealth inequality with raw gumption.
Entrepreneurialism and innovation require capital to get started, so I suspect that uneven wealth distribution is harmful to capitalism.If it becomes a situation where people with industry experience and ideas, have to beg for funding from wealthy benefactors, on revenue sharing terms set by those with a hold everything, I don't see many feeling that it is worth their time as opposed to the idea of controlling their own destiny (owning their own business, etc), nor people being confident in involving others in the risk - who may want a payout even after failure.Of course, as usual, I expect many of those who were born into privilege are going to be blind of the realities of how difficult it is to make one's own way, and will spout fairy tale understandings of the real world where if people just pull themselves up by their bootstraps more, they can overcome any wealth inequality with raw gumption.
While I agree with the concerns you are expressing in your post initially, you make it sound like it's impossible to make something of yourself by simply pulling up yer bootstraps and putting in a bit of elbow grease. I've seen someone take their last $2,000 in savings, quit their job, start their own business and absolutely kick ass. She has 29 employees after just over 3 years since quitting her job. It's not impossible... it's just rare - especially with all these people running around with a sense of entitlement.
It's not impossible... it's just rare - especially with all these people running around with a sense of entitlement.
That's the point being made though. Does it make sense that this kind of scenario stays rare and for the majority of seed funding to come from the blessed oligarchy, or does it make sense for there to be as few barriers to economic innovation as possible?
I always thought that 20x was a nice figure that noone needed more than. By that I mean I can see very little justifiable reason why any one person should earn more than 20x that of the median person they employ. So if you're the CEO of a company where the median income for your 5,000 employees is $80,000/y, you should be able to more than get by on $1.6m/year.
Too much or too little wealth/income inequality is generally very bad for an economic/political system because it distorts the incentives faced by the set of economic agents to the point where there is no longer a broad alignment of interests.
Where the line is drawn as to how much inequality is tolerable is subjective. Most people would probably agree with my first sentance only to have violent disagreements over what consituted an acceptable level of inequality.
I'm not going to contribute anything further to this thread because even if it somehow doesn't devolve into an infi/sheerobesity vs. fpot/nerf clusterfuck of retardation, it will definitely be packed full of conjecture and rhetoric designed solely to further one's point of view and/or based on one's own personal biases.
Entrepreneurialism and innovation require capital to get started, so I suspect that uneven wealth distribution is harmful to capitalism.
Entrepreneurialism and innovation also require incentives for the entrepreneur to take risk, e.g. the promise of an uneven wealth distribution relative to his or her peers...
It's never as simple as either side would have you believe and unintended consequences are present everywhere.
The real issue for me is that the gap is becoming wider, wealth inequality is growing and alarmingly so. Close taxation loopholes should be a great place to start, and surely will only piss off those who are currently screwing the system. Then we should be talking about other initiatives such as increased taxation etc.
Entrepreneurialism and innovation also require incentives for the entrepreneur to take risk
I don't disagree, the opposite wasn't implied in my post.
Though, being able to start, even if only for wanting to achieve even footing (an incentive for many in the working class), is still more feasible than wanting to start for the purpose of achieving greater footing, and simply not being able to due to there being no capital to work with in your end of the economic spectrum.
I always thought that 20x was a nice figure that noone needed more than. By that I mean I can see very little justifiable reason why any one person should earn more than 20x that of the median person they employ. So if you're the CEO of a company where the median income for your 5,000 employees is $80,000/y, you should be able to more than get by on $1.6m/year.
What a disgusting way of thinking.
It has nothing to do with "what you should be able to get by on". You get paid for bringing value to the marketplace. So if someone can generate a company an extra $5 billion, there is nothing wrong with that person getting paid $100 million+.
If you have a problem with it, change the system. This was the system that was chosen; in this system there is no such thing as greed.
With technological unemployment the lack of purchasing power from the lower classes and hording of wealth from the upper will reduce the cyclical consumption, this system is outdated and can't keep running like this forever.
I think a baseline of basic living requirements can be provided with our current technology/methodology to all for the minimum labour contribution to providing these services. Outside of that for additional (lavish) items can be obtained through logging more hours in services/time/dedication to the betterment of the community/city/country/etc.
Nothing will change while those top 1% still own the politicians in the US.
What a disgusting way of thinking. It has nothing to do with "what you should be able to get by on". You get paid for bringing value to the marketplace. So if someone can generate a company an extra $5 billion, there is nothing wrong with that person getting paid $100 million+.If you have a problem with it, change the system. This was the system that was chosen; in this system there is no such thing as greed.
Yea cuz that CEO did all the work him/herself, those 5000 80k/year employees just sit around doing nothing.
CHUB I think it more appropriately values the contributions of ALL your employees over some magical CEO who mystically has the ability to generate $5 billion in value for the company by him/herself.
As a manager my ability to perform my job is driven by my teams ability to perform theirs. I have no issue what so ever with my wage being linked in some way to theirs. I think it recognises and values their function within the company - and would drive productivity. Apparently we're paying CEOs on average over 200 times more than the average worker, that is absurd by anyone's standards.
OK IMO a CEO should be remunerated on a reasonable base, and then on some realistic bonuses like everyone else. If the CEO through his wizardry doubles revenue and turns the sinking ship into the queen fucking mary thern he should definitely get fat loot for it.
It has nothing to do with "what you should be able to get by on". You get paid for bringing value to the marketplace. So if someone can generate a company an extra $5 billion, there is nothing wrong with that person getting paid $100 million+.
you're a changed man chub, i remember when you were disgusted at the thought of someone earning $200k and asking how anyone could ever spend that much money!?!?!
I thought that too but with such a change of heart maybe we are wrong. Sure it wasn't Vash who said that?
While I reckon there needs to be a lower limit on what people are paid I really have to say that there should be no upper limit. One of the cool things about western society is that you can dream of earning untold millions if you have a good enough idea, work hard enough or know Santo Santoro. If the person at the helm is doing things right enough to bring in the billions they deserve to be rewarded.
I dont think chub said that, i recall saying it. The thought a CEO should get a $100 million bonus is some batshit crazy thinking. The whole company's employees who helped reach that level of profit should get a share of it. I don't see why a CEO's base salary should be any higher than the leader of our country, and i'm fine with 6 digit bonuses if the CEO performs well.
It'd be interesting to see how Australia compares to the USA in this regard.
I looked in to this not too long ago, if I remember correctly the top 1% in Australia earn I think it was $198,000/pa or more. The curve in Australia is extremely level, barely a curve at all.
I think you had to go to something like 0.1% before you got to $1m/pa.
you're a changed man chub, i remember when you were disgusted at the thought of someone earning $200k and asking how anyone could ever spend that much money!?!?!
That sounds about right. I spent the majority of my life with a victim mindset. Leeching off Centrelink/the taxpayer, screwing over my employers, pushing towards more socialist values.
Then I experienced what it's like on the other side.
I'm just chiming in for a bit of fun. I don't get riled up by these types of discussions any more.
I don't disagree, the opposite wasn't implied in my post.
It was conspicuously absent. You said X was bad for Y due to A but failed to mention that X is good for Y due to B. Whether this was intentional or not it was worth drawing attention to.
Though, being able to start, even if only for wanting to achieve even footing, is still more important than wanting to start for the purpose of achieving greater footing, and simply not being able to due to there being no capital to work with in your end of the economic spectrum.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Something about a lack of capital for those on the lower rungs of the socio-eocnomic ladder.
I don't really want to get into that as I doubt you have any evidence for that sort of a statement and instead will rely on your own personal anecdotes of trying to raise capital for however many businesses you've talked about owning/running on here.
The thought a CEO should get a $100 million bonus is some batshit crazy thinking. The whole company's employees who helped reach that level of profit should get a share of it.
Lets give him something more "reasonable", perhaps $5 million.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Something about a lack of capital
You said that there is a danger of no incentive without unequal wealth, which I actually agree with.
But I had two points - for many, the incentive of just 'catching up' is still an incentive (not necessarily aiming to get ahead, just to not be behind any more), and more critically, being "too even" still at least allows people to have capital to start with, whereas being too uneven doesn't, and so just completely shuts down many who would otherwise have a stab.
I don't really want to get into that as I doubt you have any evidence
I didn't claim any information which required evidence?
Though I would like to see where psychological science has confirmed many of the assumptions about human nature employed by economists. I'm not even entirely sold on greed being everything in motivation for building a businesses, one of mine I built largely because I really just love the industry and product, and people loved my prior free work.
It's not impossible... it's just rare - especially with all these people running around with a sense of entitlement.
yeah, no one have ever saved up a deposit to buy a house then mortgaged part of their house to start a business. it's completely unheard of.
also, nerf what is this eneitlement crap you go on with? the entitlement mentality is manifested in people who expect to be paid for doing no work i.e. those on government benefits.
people who work and take risks with their own money, and make new businesses to employ people, they are voluntarily enlarging their headaches in the hope of making some profit some day that won't be "redistributed" by our benevolent government and that they might get to enjoy if it's still legal.
if people didn't save up their earnings from their shitty job then take a punt on their small business there would be no profits, no new businesses and no wealth to redistribute.
It has nothing to do with "what you should be able to get by on". You get paid for bringing value to the marketplace. So if someone can generate a company an extra $5 billion, there is nothing wrong with that person getting paid $100 million+.
If you have a problem with it, change the system. This was the system that was chosen; in this system there is no such thing as greed.
100% damn straight. why should someone be paid what they are not worth?
if I have a property that can rent max for $100k p.a. then on 8% yield that makes it worth $1.2m to sell. Why should I be entitled to expect a higher price? if the govt passed a law making it compulsory top pay $120k p.a. for that property, the property simply remains vacant.
What makes people different? For some reason, prescribing wages rates is supposed to be a cure for all inequality in the workforce. why not just make everyone's minimum wage $100k p.a. that should ensure we all live compfrtably.
I get the feeling there are a lot of closet Greens voters on this board. You only need to have finished grade 9 maths to know that most of these fairytales do not actuially work outside of a Greens voter's mind.
also, nerf what is this eneitlement crap you go on with? the entitlement mentality is manifested in people who expect to be paid for doing no work i.e. those on government benefits.
huh?
people who work and take risks with their own money, and make new businesses to employ people, they are voluntarily enlarging their headaches in the hope of making some profit some day
Le sigh. I've done all of those things - sacrificed and saved while working multiple jobs to build my wealth up from zero to enough to fund two startups for several years, have started three businesses - starting from when I was still in highschool - have worked multiple jobs most of my life, gained and lost months' worth of wages on risky investments and paid the psychological price, etc. Yet you, who go on and on about what a risk-taking self-made hero you are, really just inherited a job at your dad's company. Please stop impersonating and misrepresenting those of us who actually have started a business on our own savings, sweat, and labour with your bad imitation and ideological frothing. I am aware that a country costs money to run, and while there is inefficiency, much of it results in a fantastic civilization. I'm not paying taxes right now and don't feel happy about it at all tbh, and hope to be contributing again within two years. And before you froth, this does not mean that I support bad spending, pork barreling, etc, it just means that I support civilisation and truly understand that life costs money.
yeah, no one have ever saved up a deposit to buy a house then mortgaged part of their house to start a business. it's completely unheard of.
And you've never started a business as best I can tell, so just shhhh and stop trying to play the entrepreneurial hero.
What makes people different? For some reason, prescribing wages rates is supposed to be a cure for all inequality in the workforce. why not just make everyone's minimum wage $100k p.a. that should ensure we all live compfrtably.
Because it wouldn't solve anything, the price of bread would just rise to $27 per loaf and milk to $35/liter... and if you think rent was expensive at $350/week, wait til it hits $900/wk.
Yet you, who go on and on about what a risk-taking self-made hero you are, really just inherited a job at your dad's company.
why do you keep saying this? i was doing fine flying high in the public service and owning my home before I ever joined my family's company. now as a small business operator and company director i am required to give personal guarantees to the bank I borrow from for our company's projects - once again you spread a falsehood because in reality you know jack shit.
i love when you post nerf, it's shows how little you know about the commercial world.
Because you keep selling yourself as the master of all that is business startups, when several of us who disagree with you on many of your points have done it ourselves, and you never actually have, yet you keep ideologically frothing at *us* for hating business startups or some weird shit every time that we disagree with you.
i was doing fine flying high in the public service and owning my home before I ever joined my family's company.
Ok? So why do you keep going on about the mindset of the business starter, if you admit that you're one of the only people here who's never actually had to do it?
i love when you post nerf, it's shows how little you know about the commercial world.
Calling you out on your false self-representation and ideological game playing, didn't involve making any claims about the "commercial world".
also, nerf what is this eneitlement crap you go on with? the entitlement mentality is manifested in people who expect to be paid for doing no work i.e. those on government benefits.
And again, huh? (Though I'm unenthusiastic to ask)
These conversations, partially about wages discrepancies between the CEOs of companies and the lowest paid employees, are always unproductive because they focus on how hard people work instead of what is actually important and that it how much value they add.
I don't think anyone disputes that a low paid worked can work as hard or even harder than the CEO of a company but the value produced is always massively different which is why the pay is massively different. In many cases a CEO of a company, for their vision, direction etc, can be what makes a company great and successful. Look at Apple, before Steve Jobs came back they were pretty much dead, 90 days from bankruptcy, but then he managed to turn the company around and provide massive value to Apple which will probably pay off for at least another decade after he died. There are not many workers in a company which can claim something like that. This isn't to say the workers of the company didn't work hard (or even harder), nor contribute to the success of Apple but if it wasn't for Jobs they wouldn't have been able to, hence his contribution is more valuable. This is something which happens very often in companies and why CEOs are worth soo much to a company.
A major problem is the poorer/middle class people and the rich people get their money from different ways. The bulk of poorer/middle class people get their income primarily from their wage (ie the hours they work) when rich people get it from more passive incomes such as investments etc. This does come down to opportunity but there is also a large part from education, poorer/middle class don't teach their kids about managing money effectively and investing and growing wealth while the wealth do. This needs to be taught to kids more at school at a young age and re-enforced throughout schooling to break this cycle. Without this I don't think any redistribution of wealth is going to really make any significant change because the extra money given to the poorer/middle class will just get spent instead of being used in the best way possible to make a real long term difference.
This isn't to say that taxes on the super rich shouldn't be increased (why is the top tax bracket always below $1m?) but I think focusing on this alone is not going to help without educating people as well. Also the comparing how hard people work vs their renumeration is pointless.
ok so my arbitrary wage figure is not valid but another arbirtary wage fixing arrangement (the award system) is valid.... please explain
Because people being able to earn an unlimited amount of money is good, but employers having the power to pay as low as they want is bad. If that scenario existed, an employer could during an interview for a really menial job (like security guard huck huck swidt) say I had this other person who said they'd do it for $5 an hour (and not be lying) until they find the most desperate person who will do it for $2 an hour. This would be a widespread thing and a great many people desperate for a work would be exploited under this system. But you don't care about that do you?
people who work and take risks with their own money
Many CEOS etc aren't using their money, they're using mine and other shareholders money. The ones taking the most risk with their money is the shareholder.
There are not many workers in a company which can claim something like that. This isn't to say the workers of the company didn't work hard (or even harder), nor contribute to the success of Apple but if it wasn't for Jobs they wouldn't have been able to, hence his contribution is more valuable.
How do you know that?
How do you know if they didn't appoint someone who was getting paid 50k to do design work for apple wouldn't be able to achieve twice as much as Steve Jobs? This is a rhetorical question, I know Jobs was a perfect fit for CEO, but look past that and see my point.
The worker didn't get the opportunity for that. Steve Jobs became CEO because he was rich, and Apple bought out his company. Most CEOs start off as being one of the largest investors, being elected a board member for their fantastic richness, and then playing political games with their moneys. They don't put up an ad on Seek and find the best person for the job. Getting this job is a pat on the back for being rich. It's a private club - you can't put your hand up and do the job just because you're excellent at everything you try your hand at. It's a job appointed by rich people to their rich friends.
Given these constraints, and the limited pool of candidates, it's quite likely that a CEO who is mediocre (when all other CEOs are horrible) will be considered an amazing talent. If they applied themselves to a job where their individual performance could be easily measured they might not stack up so well.
Many CEOS etc aren't using their money, they're using mine and other shareholders money. The ones taking the most risk with their money is the shareholder.
Yes - so with all that risk comes great responsibility, right? So you, as a shareholder, would prefer a good CEO as opposed to some muppet playing with your investments, right? Well it just so happens that other companies want good CEOs too, so you'll need to pay the price to attract the CEO you need.
How do you know if they didn't appoint someone who was getting paid 50k to do design work for apple wouldn't be able to achieve twice as much as Steve Jobs? This is a rhetorical question, I know Jobs was a perfect fit for CEO, but look past that and see my point.
The worker didn't get the opportunity for that. Steve Jobs became CEO because he was rich, and Apple bought out his company. Most CEOs start off as being one of the largest investors, being elected a board member for their fantastic richness, and then playing political games with their moneys. They don't put up an ad on Seek and find the best person for the job. Getting this job is a pat on the back for being rich. It's a private club - you can't put your hand up and do the job just because you're excellent at everything you try your hand at. It's a job appointed by rich people to their rich friends.
Given these constraints, and the limited pool of candidates, it's quite likely that a CEO who is mediocre (when all other CEOs are horrible) will be considered an amazing talent. If they applied themselves to a job where their individual performance could be easily measured they might not stack up so well.
Every CEO rides on the back of the employees. The measure of a CEO is how well the underlings peform as they attempt to climb the greasy pole.
Yes - so with all that risk comes great responsibility, right? So you, as a shareholder, would prefer a good CEO as opposed to some muppet playing with your investments, right? Well it just so happens that other companies want good CEOs too, so you'll need to pay the price to attract the CEO you need.It's not rocket science, people....
A CEO is only as good as the people who work in the company. Who actually do the work.
Yes - so with all that risk comes great responsibility, right? So you, as a shareholder, would prefer a good CEO as opposed to some muppet playing with your investments, right? Well it just so happens that other companies want good CEOs too, so you'll need to pay the price to attract the CEO you need.It's not rocket science, people....
Except for golden parachutes, this is basically right. I am not sure how common the practice is here in Australia but in the US it seems to be common enough that there's always some douchebag CEO getting paid to quit so they stop running the company into the ground.
Actually Time have a few other good stories:
- this guy somehow got a $130m chute written into his contract if he was fired without cause in the first year - which he was. Shareholders were screwed.
- Pfizer CEO takes massive payrise as share price declines
- citigroup guy walks away with $100m after they are pwned
- Merril Lynch dude walks away with a cool $161m after the company filed a $2b QUARTERLY loss, their biggest ever
I have no problem with high paid CEOs; I have massive problems when it takes place at the expense of the shareholders. The USA seems to have a culture of the board just going for ludicrous salaries and contracts for their executive - I guess shareholders either don't care or are too apathetic to do anything (...or all the major shareholders are on the boards)
Golden parachutes are designed to prevent hostile takeovers. They make the company an unattractive acquisition target because the acquiring company will be forced to pay out a heap of cash to executives. Of course, this can also backfire like in the examples you list above.
Executive compensation in public companies is complicated. It is designed by the board of directors (whom also appoint the CEO), so it's definitely not their intention to provide ways for their CEO to fleece the company.
A CEO is only as good as the people who work in the company. Who actually do the work.
The CEO is responsible for designing the organisational structure, recruiting methods, performance measures, incentives and training to attract, retain and motivate said employees.
@thermite I know it to be true because it happened. Apple was in the toilet until Jobs took over as CEO.
I am not saying that someone getting paid $50k per year could have done the same job but if someone was running Apple as well as Jobs did for $50k per year I would be very quickly trying to employ them as the CEO of my company asap and offering more because of the value that person would be able to add.
Golden parachutes for under performing CEO are pretty disgusting though, actually I think they are pretty bad in all cases. Why pay for someone adding value to the company to leave?
Yea cuz that CEO did all the work him/herself, those 5000 80k/year employees just sit around doing nothing.
no, they sat around earning their 80k. if one of those salary men tried doing the job of the CEO earning multi million dollar bonuses then the company would likely shit the bed and then noone would be earning anything. high performing managers command those sort of figures because they are in high demand and supply is limited. I love hearing the unwashed masses scoff at massive salaries and bonuses. If they were halfway capable of doing the same job then they would be.
The CEO is responsible for designing the organisational structure, recruiting methods, performance measures, incentives and training to attract, retain and motivate said employees.
No the CEO doesn't they have people to do that for them. The CEO just makes the final decision.
Responsiblity is always devolved down to the lowest possible level.
A good CEO can do wonders for a company. I used to think CEO's are just these guys who take heaps and heaps of money to do a job most people can do. Now I know different.
There are some CEO's that do indeed take heaps and heaps of money, then do a very questionable job. Eventually their name gets known and people with a clue don't invest any money into any company where they are on the board.
On the other hand there are CEO's that repeatedly do an excellent job of which people invest in companies almost solely on the CEO.
The Board of Directors and CEO are like the leaders of an army. A good General will kick arse on the battlefield and adapt to the enemy and all that goes with it. He knows full well that the quality of the troops he commands has a big impact on what he can expect to achieve. Same thing applies to CEO's. A good CEO will be sure to have quality staff throughout the company to make sure it achieves what they want.
I have massive problems when it takes place at the expense of the shareholders.
This seems like a reasonable response.
It's more that as a shareholder, you aren't invested heavily into any one company. The people who represent you (most usually your super fund) don't like to be in papers making statements or putting pressure on companies to be more responsible. Individuals who self manage their stakes in companies and are good at investing diversify and can't afford to try and weigh in their tiny voice into the debate.
To be honest, you, and everyone else here who has a super fund which hasn't just put the money into a 0 interest bank, is at fault for not trying to get these companies to pull their heads in.
My super is in a 0% safe super fund. This isn't really by choice, but by apathy, i know i should fix this, much like i should fill out all the forms to consolidate my super funds, but I haven't. I've got bigger problems than companies who can't represent part of my shares (of which i have none anyway).
Sure it is, remember all the people who went to jail over Libor rigging?or the bankers from HSBC that went away for money laundering for Mexican cartels?
in their defence, they thought they were going to get away with it
Because people being able to earn an unlimited amount of money is good, but employers having the power to pay as low as they want is bad.
so what about my lawn mowing contractor, is it ok if I lowball him?what about a farmer who has a lot of stock and needs to sell. is it ok for the stock buyers to lowball him?
you will find these days most labour on a construction site is done by ABN. They have figured out that employment relationships are not effective and makes a job site prime for Union interference. We should probably make this illegal too.
Golden Parachutes are a function contract law, and they apply to all fixed term contracts. If a club manager wants to terminate the contract of their worshipped star football player they have to pay him out the reminder. If companies with shareholders want their CEOs tied up on 5 year contracts then want to jettison them without grounds then it is the Board's failure for not making the performance criteria clearer.
The skill of a leader in structuring a business that has lots of capital tied up relies on making all parts of the organisation perform efficiently, entering into sound business agreements, innovating and pushing the right kinds of products. Both the CEOs of Rio Tinto and BHP have resigned recently as their companies undershot their targets. A CEO contract is entered into freely between two parties - as any agreement should be.
When I saw Nitro's post about a good military analogy, I expected it to be the one where people always point out that General's don't contribute as heavily towards the success of battles as the Sergeants and Lieutenants, the actual leaders on the field.
But no, it was the funny analogy where victories are made by Generals.
so what about my lawn mowing contractor, is it ok if I lowball him?what about a farmer who has a lot of stock and needs to sell. is it ok for the stock buyers to lowball him?
you will find these days most labour on a construction site is done by ABN. They have figured out that employment relationships are not effective and makes a job site prime for Union interference. We should probably make this illegal too.
Not quite sure what you're getting at but this is the scenario I am describing.
Say you have a person who has spent their whole life raising a family or some other thing that takes up all their time yet does nothing to raise their skills in a way that would be desirable for an employer. I think we can agree that this would be a rather common scenario for someone to be in. All of a sudden, they need work and because they haven't developed a whole bunch of skills throughout their lives they have to take a very basic job. Like a cleaner or something. Now an employer knows that there are heaps of people out there with no skills who need money. During interviews, the employer asks how much pay they want, and a person might say $15/hour, which is a pittance. The employer then says but hey, I just had someone who offered to do it for $10, so no job for you buddy. This number would get lower as people get more desperate. According to this minimum wage is $7.25 for non-tipped and $2.13 for tipped in the USA. I am assuming that means there is at least some level of mandated minimum wages in the USA.
Now you seem to think minimum wages are a bad thing because [reason]. I think they are a good thing because it helps avoid a situation where some people are earning $7.25 or in some cases $2.13 with tips in a situation where they are obviously being exploited due to their desperation for money so they can you know, eat. And live in some form of shelter. The reason you think it is bad is some lolbertarian thing you were prattling on about endlessly in that other thread where you were claiming some sort of phantom over-regulation that was crippling our economy or something.
One can still think that managers are critical and important without thinking that the modern status quo is necessarily the best way for it to be, or healthy for capitalism. I have a lot of respect for people who can turn a company around or do well in business, it's the other super-stretched ideological bullshit that some of them come up with which annoys me.
e.g. If the wealth divide described in the original video is going to be defended, then people can't in the same breath decry the workers of the country for hardly paying any taxes, when only 7% of the wealth is stretched over something like the bottom 80% of the population, who sure as hell include a lot of hard working people (Americans are some of the hardest working in the world). Another reason that I see such a wealth divide as bad is that it removes people from having a part in paying for their own country, by necessity. The country can't tax them unless it intends to refund them with food stamps / houses / etc, or else there is no working population and no economy left. And is why I'm so glad that somebody as naive and detached as Mitt Romney didn't recently win the election over there, having said this:
There are 47 percent of the people who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. The president starts off with 48-9 percent — He starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income taxes. 47 percent of Americans pay no incomes taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn’t come up. He’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. That’s what they say every four years. And so my job is to not to worry about those few (inaudible) they should take personal responsibility and take care for their lives.
"No responsibility" for not having money which isn't mathematically available at that end of the spectrum, when they have to compete for it against people much better equipped and with the advantages which come with already having it. The worst part though, was that he himself was born as the son of a wealthy CEO, and started off with handouts of nearly a million in today's dollars before he'd even finished university, yet he throws around things like "take personal responsibility and take care for their lives".
Now you seem to think minimum wages are a bad thing because [reason]
Because any efficient market i.e. plenty of buyers and plenty of sellers will figure itself out. We seem confident enough to do that with lawn mower contractors and farmers.
This number would get lower as people get more desperate.
according to this logic then people should be working for $0/hour
The wealth disparity is the lowest in Sweden. No one seems to complain. We should adopt their social policies.
Funnily enough the company tax rate in Sweden is 22% so they can attract business but their overall tax a % of GDP is close to 50%. Holy shit that is terrifying.
Because any efficient market i.e. plenty of buyers and plenty of sellers will figure itself out. We seem confident enough to do that with lawn mower contractors and farmers.
This is another libertarian thing isn't it? 'The free market will figure itself out'. It's really dumb and why I like to call it lolbertarian.
And uhhh, what? I think your logic system is a bit broken there dude because again I have no idea what you're talking about. I could see someone going as low as maybe $5/hour but eventually the cost of getting to work would be more than they are earning and it would be pointless. Besides, who would ever work for free if they need the money for food and housing?
Fun fact: George Harrison wrote the song Taxman when he found out the tax rate for people in the top bracket was 95%. For every pound you earned, you got to keep 5p of it back in those times.
I'm starting to think that infi actually just enjoys the attention, and doesn't remotely care about backing up anything that he says.
also, nerf what is this eneitlement crap you go on with? the entitlement mentality is manifested in people who expect to be paid for doing no work i.e. those on government benefits.
Agree with fpot. A reasonable minimum wage is a requirement for a well running society. Sounds like infi wants an anarchist style society where the rich use the poor as a form of slave labor, barely surviving. Minimum wage has to be high enough for a person to earn a living, raise a family, and if they desire, to attend uni to get a more comfortable lifestyle. With this highly competitive job market you've dreamed up, none of that is possible. They'd be using the streets as shelter, as each homeless person attempts to lowball the other.
If you are employed by someone who isn't paying you enough to survive, you just simply move on and get another job which would then force that employer to raise wages because they wouldn't be able to get anyone to fill the positions.
Personally I think that minimum wage (and other provisions of the NES) is important in that it sets the baseline working conditions in the country. Its easy for educated middle class people earning above minimum wage to carp on about markets but the notion that people would not be taken advantage of without a minimum work standard is at best naive and at worst cynical or predatorial.
What work should be done for under $600 per week in 2013's Australia?
So that's where we get to working for zero and then eventually the employees will be paying their bosses for a job.
This simply dies not happen in the competitive labour market. If an employer does not offer a competitive wage, then the good workers go to another employer offering more. Why would.an employee agree to conditions where they cannot make ends meet?
if your phone or power provider is too dear, you go elsewhere. If you are not happy with your partner/spouse you get a divorce break up. There are no laws in those situations, we are simply governed by our freedom of choice. For some reason employment and wages is unique?
If you are employed by someone who isn't paying you enough to survive, you just simply move on and get another job which would then force that employer to raise wages because they wouldn't be able to get anyone to fill the positions.
Why would.an employee agree to conditions where they cannot make ends meet?
Because people need to work and earn money to afford to live? You can't simultaneously say that people on welfare are leeching from society and then go on to say that if a job isn't paying enough then just quit and look for another. It is glaringly obvious that you two have never had to worry about putting food on the table.
Do we need to keep pointing to the US to show how bad it can get?
...the current percentage of people now living in that “one paycheck away from disaster” situation in the U.S. is 38%.
You're just repeating the same lolbertarian fantasy world garbage again and again and again. This is why people think I am a dick because there is no real way to respond to it apart from calling it lolbertarian garbage. I suppose I could call it libertarian garbage but lolbertarian is more accurate.
The reason is because employment is the way people get money. In a world without minimum wages it would be highly likely that employers would have people in a position where they are so desperate to work they will only receive enough money to live in a basic dwelling and buy just enough food to live. This sucks, and I'd hate to live in a society where a significant percentage of people are forced to work for money that allows them literally zero pleasures in life. People also need money for entertainment, socialising, the occasional cheap holiday even. The dole is the correct amount of money because it's enough for people to buy food and live in a house till they get a job.
I really can't believe I am arguing this with someone. I find it pretty amazing that someone is so disassociated with reality that they believe that taking away award wages is the way to go and the market will sort it out and everybody will be happy. Only On the Internet.
more like a basic economic principle.
In some cases, the market could probably sort it out. Like, for coffee prices and stuff. Do you honestly believe that if award wages were abolished, and employers could pay whatever with an army of poor and desperate people out there that vulnerable people would not get exploited by it?
In any market there are marginal traders, those who are right on the edge of supply and demand. Some of them go bust in any market.
Does the person who paid too much for their house and now has a mortgage worth more than their house deserve protection? Or is it just the worker who agreed to a low bargain for their labour. I have put many scenarios hereabout people deserving of protection but it seems employment and wages is super special and unique.
the market is about letting free people take their own risks and rewards. Bailouts and govt programs simply distort those decisions.
What about a farmer who is already over his overdraft, or a lawn mowing contractor whose equipment is about to be repossessed by the finance company. Don't they deserve protection. Everyone should get protection so there are never any losers.
What about a farmer who is already over his overdraft, or a lawn mowing contractor whose equipment is about to be repossessed by the finance company. Don't they deserve protection. Everyone should get protection so there are never any losers.
Because they are willing participants in the free market, not employees. In exchange for assuming the risk, market participants are entitled to greater reward if and when their enterprise succeeds. If I build the next Microsoft, or Google or Facebook, my employees are entitled to none of it. Why should everyone be forced to become business people? Not everyone has the appetite or acumen.
You still haven't answered what is onerous about the NES' minimum employment standards, I'm assuming you never will. I think the bar is certainly set low enough, we don't need to pay people less.
What about a farmer who is already over his overdraft, or a lawn mowing contractor whose equipment is about to be repossessed by the finance company. Don't they deserve protection. Everyone should get protection so there are never any losers.
The way I see it lawnmower men and farmers have taken a gamble at making big bucks by starting a business/farm and are somewhat in control if they succeed or fail. If they do fail, they can sell out/go bankrupt, go on the dole till they find a job that pays at award wage and then start living their life again. In your world they'd go bankrupt, somehow live while not receiving dole payments and then get a job that pays $5/hour and then probably hang themselves. Yep, seems much better to me.
You still haven't answered what is onerous about the NES' minimum employment standards,
because they have never been agreed to. price should be a matter for agreement. these are not like building or safety regulations, price is purely dependent on the economic conditions.
By your logic infi, if the country you're in isn't giving you adequate conditions to run your business, why don't you just quit and find a better country?
because they have never been agreed to. price should be a matter for agreement. these are not like building or safety regulations, price is purely dependent on the economic conditions.
They have been - above the bare minimum standard. Price isn't some magic thing that should never ever be regulated. The NES serves a purpose for determining the minimum employment standard in Australia, not the average, just the minimum.
Aside from some ideological POV, why is the establishment minimum wage a problem, and who should earn less than $600 per week for a week's work?
When I saw Nitro's post about a good military analogy, I expected it to be the one where people always point out that General's don't contribute as heavily towards the success of battles as the Sergeants and Lieutenants, the actual leaders on the field.
But no, it was the funny analogy where victories are made by Generals.
Generals never make victories. They just take credit for them much like CEOs.
You'll find that the success is at the Colonel to Brigadier level. This is why there aren't many of them because they are at a level to lead successful revolutions.
At the Colonel level you will find they work the actual battle plan, the battle plan being a concept thrown out by a General. Sergeants/Lieutenants execute the plan.
IMO there shouldn't be a minimum wage, there should be a maximum salary. The CEOs salary should be 5X the lowest paid employee for businesses under 100 people, 10X for businesses over 1000 employees. This way for a CEO to get better pay he has to raise the money the lowest person gets paid. Those in between get the same raise % wise.
By your logic infi, if the country you're in isn't giving you adequate conditions to run your business, why don't you just quit and find a better country?
why should I? Before 1994 there was no unfair dismissal laws in Australia. For most of Australia's history there has been no award wages. These are socialist constructs of the 20th century. They can easily be unwound, just rescind the Acts that made them.
Aside from some ideological POV, why is the establishment minimum wage a problem, and who should earn less than $600 per week for a week's work?
whoever chooses to, to get the job? do you tell the trolley guy who is on an ABN who much he can charge the shopping centre? He is literally a labourer, he doesn't even own the tractor.
This is how productivity is grown in any economy, it's not by making labour rates go up, it's by making workers more efficient and the cost of labour PER UNIT and other inputs down. but as labour prices go down so do the cost of goods the whole economy grows through productivity and not just because they are in the union.
do you start your shopping intending to buy the dearer petrol or the dearer LED TV? NO. What is the difference with wages? Do you expect an award minimum for selling TVs or RAM in Australia? NO, what's the difference with wages? You know what the major component of Petrol or TVs or RAM is? WAGES
But still we want to fix our wages in this country like it's immune from the inescapable laws of the market because Australia is special or something. wat
why should I? Before 1994 there was no unfair dismissal laws in Australia. For most of Australia's history there has been no award wages. These are socialist constructs of the 20th century. They can easily be unwound, just rescind the Acts that made them.
So you're saying you would rather fight to improve conditions for yourself where you already are than just quit and find a better place to be? Interesting. But surely if all businesses left the country due to the unfair conditions, the country would be forced to improve those conditions to have any business at all, right?
I just think all the countries with less wealth inequality are nicer places for everyone to live.
Without a doubt! It's no surprise to me that the most livable cities lists are always almost exclusively populated by cities from Australia, Canada and Western Europe/Scandanavia:
Those livable cities lists are a socialist construct of the 21st century to help support the socialist constructs of the 20th century. Don't you know anything?
There is no way those laws will ever be rescinded, because our politicians are at worst only incompetent, not insane.
How many people in Australia are even on the minimum wage?
And infi are you ever going to explain what you meant by "also, nerf what is this eneitlement crap you go on with? the entitlement mentality is manifested in people who expect to be paid for doing no work i.e. those on government benefits."? Lawl?
There is no way those laws will ever be rescinded, because our politicians are at worst only incompetent, not insane.
Remember what the LNP did with hard earned gay rights achievements in Qld? There are people who are just rabidly looking to rewind advances in civilization. We should put them into special camps, imo.
because they have never been agreed to. price should be a matter for agreement. these are not like building or safety regulations, price is purely dependent on the economic conditions.
Wrong, they are like safety regulations, they are safety regulations for society.
Markets are fluid and volatile, education, experience and training are things that take time to achieve. The skill market should be driven primarily by demand, not supply. Because while demand can fluctuate with relative speed, supply can not.
Award wages are there to help ensure a stable skill market.
Very few people in Australia are in "true" poverty. We have safety nets, health care and multiple ensurities. Hell technically our street folk earn more than some middle class folk in other countries (ps. don't do drugs).
And that sounds terrible because street folk in Australia do it tough.
But ... take Philippines as an example the average wage is under 300usd a month.
I spend way more than that a day on coffee, some do it on water others on the internet telling people how fucking awesome they are for not buying coffee or water... ie. western culture (ours) is decadent. Which is fine because we have managed not to have corrupt dictators, drug cartels and stupid expensive wars completely destroy us ... but it makes us fucking lucky. ps. I actually do volunteer work for homeless which I doubt less than 2% of this forum do (but I am sure infi once spoke to a homeless dude, of course his definition of homeless is someone that had a mortgage).
Check out this URL Some bbc page Input your wage and Country and if you have even a shred of humanity (I long since stopped expecting casa and infi to have any left) be embarrassed by how far off the chart you really are.
ps. remember that when the likes of Fox and the LNP tell you how bad we got it... we really really really (3 times for effect) don't.
We are truly a lucky Country.
there is nothing wrong with that person getting paid $100 million+
Yes ... yes there is. No one is worth 6250 workers. People earning that are the lucky combination of ability and skill along with luck and someone raping a financial loophole (or family). Or in the case of Paris Hilton (and most Royals)... who the fuck knows ...
Any puritanical bullshit is flawed ... democracy and capitalism included. (And before infi calls communism/socialism/random insult, they are flawed too)
Pure water is not drinkable ... Pure is bad unless it's an 18 year old scotch.
Humanity doesn't have an answer yet, and is unlikely anytime soon. Hell people still think Lord (lol) Monkton is credible. We are broken, bring back the dinosaurs!
It's not impossible... it's just rare - especially with all these people running around with a sense of entitlement.
to which I responded with the quote that mystified you. I don't see how business operators have a sense of entitlement. people who don't work when they can and who have their hand out for for government benefits have the "sense of entitlement".
Just rewatching that OP video, the exponential explosion in the 1%'s wealth in America is a symptom of how corrupt the US's capitalism has become.
In the good old days before government got involved in business, you would make something or provide a service, put out a shingle and sell it to someone else, or even overseas.
Then the government had to get involved with quotas, tarrifs, subsidies, bailouts, and the Fed reserve buying mortgage backed securities and issuing money to buy otherwise junk financial assets. If the Banks that invested in all this F Grade junk before 2007 were allowed to lose their shirts there would have been a much greater redistribution of wealth (in a punitive sense).
Government breeds a class of rent seekers: car manufacturers and farming conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies and the like who convince Washington or Canberra that they cannot survive without subsidies to provide jobs. If these governments were around in prehistoric times, the dinosaurs would have gotten a bailout too.
Government is not the solution to the inequity of OP video - IT IS THE PROBLEM. When you have the same insiders from Goldman Sachs becoming the Treasury Secretary or going onto the Federal Reserve, who is looking after who? Everyone who tries to make an honest dollar has no chance as Government is controlled completely by insiders.
Capitalism is wonderful when government is not involved, but once government (politicians, public servants, lobbyists) all getting their claws into this yummy tax payer money, the focus is not on workers or even delivering great products into the economy any more - it is simply about self-interest.
Any problem mentioned, infi only needs to get around to looking at it for a few seconds to immediately know how regulation is entirely to blame.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates were the two richest men in America when they said that there is a class war being waged and won by the rich, where they are easily able to be paying a lower percentage of tax than a regular worker, when they need the help less and it only further sets them ahead. Their suggestions have been raised taxes back towards traditional levels, and implementing equalisers against royalty-like bloodline cultures with things such as inheritance taxes.
Back in 2007, he went to Washington to appear before a Senate Finance Committee hearing on estate taxes. In his opening statement, Buffett said, "Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward a plutocracy."
I reckons this situation in the US is a result of their completely unrestricted and almost radical sense of liberalism, it's all about the individual and not the community or the society, everyone just gets theirs. They have an irrational and illogical fear/hatred of anything remotely socialist or communist, yet they also have warped definitions of those concepts.
There's an almost Australian version here, seems like it's pretty equal already but is heading towards greater inequality.
Wait, so are people in this thread that are for huge CEO and executive salaries saying the present day breakdown in the OP video is perfectly fine or not?
Government breeds a class of rent seekers: car manufacturers and farming conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies and the like who convince Washington or Canberra that they cannot survive without subsidies to provide jobs. If these governments were around in prehistoric times, the dinosaurs would have gotten a bailout too.
Wouldn't the simple answer to this be that if your company turns a profit, you have to pay back money provided by the government?
Even if not immediately, but like the HECS system?
Wait, so are people in this thread that are for huge CEO and executive salaries saying the present day breakdown in the OP video is perfectly fine or not?
The whole "you have to give people the opportunity to be filthy rich" doesn't hold any validity with me. The whole idea that someone needs so much money you can fill a swimming pool? I don't get it. I don't understand why you need $10m/y when you can still be filthy rich with $1m/year.
But the one thing that really bugs me: How you can justify massive bonuses and salaries while cutting jobs. Where reform in laws about executives really needs reform is something which basically says "as a company executive, you only get paid if you're employing more people than this time last year". That's the single defining KPI government should care about. I don't care how you do it - they should be encouraged to re-train people. You want to make 50 manufacturing jobs redundant? Fine, re-train those guys to do something else, that should be part of doing business.
But saying "we need to save money, so we're going to cut staff" - and then calling that a success? That's only a success for your business. It's a net loss for society.
But saying "we need to save money, so we're going to cut staff" - and then calling that a success? That's only a success for your business. It's a net loss for society.
A business is self-serving, it does not and should not care about society. The only time a business should care about society is when it's beneficial to do so; which is a round-about way of saying they only care about themselves.
This is the system we have chosen. Stop complaining about businesses, they are working perfectly within the chosen system and they're not going to change.
What you want is a change in system, towards more socialist values. That's fine. You need to stop hallucinating about businesses moving towards socialist practises, while remaining in a capitalist system.
Since when were making a profit and doing something positive for society mutually exclusive?
To try to claim that's "socialist" just shows that you just like to throw the word around because of the negative connotations and reactions it brings to help sell an argument - even though the idea is in no way socialist or even related.
The whole "you have to give people the opportunity to be filthy rich" doesn't hold any validity with me. The whole idea that someone needs so much money you can fill a swimming pool? I don't get it. I don't understand why you need $10m/y when you can still be filthy rich with $1m/year.
But the one thing that really bugs me: How you can justify massive bonuses and salaries while cutting jobs. Where reform in laws about executives really needs reform is something which basically says "as a company executive, you only get paid if you're employing more people than this time last year". That's the single defining KPI government should care about. I don't care how you do it - they should be encouraged to re-train people. You want to make 50 manufacturing jobs redundant? Fine, re-train those guys to do something else, that should be part of doing business. But saying "we need to save money, so we're going to cut staff" - and then calling that a success? That's only a success for your business. It's a net loss for society.
Not all companies are big and nasty, there are some very well meanining corporations, even American ones (I worked for one) where the base salary is 10 x of the average workers salary . Excludes stock options but still goes to show not all companies are run like that.
10x Average is kind a wrong, because when they give themself an $80m salary, hey look, the average goes up. Slightly. But hey, suddenly I can give myself an $88m salary instead of $80m salary.
Median should be the figure used.
Personally I'd like to see better tax breaks for economic development and supporting new enterprises.
Basically, organisations structured like charities that help small businesses, writers, artists, inventors, independent researchers etc etc to grow into self-sufficient enterprises -- essentially angel investment without snatching equity.
Providing tax breaks for this flow of capital relieves much of the inefficiency of Government redistribution in the equation, as the econo-charities will be competing for capital. Instead Government's role would be certification and policing of the investments to ensure they are genuine and not rorts.
Since when were making a profit and doing something positive for society mutually exclusive? To try to claim that's "socialist" just shows that you just like to throw the word around because of the negative connotations and reactions it brings to help sell an argument - even though the idea is in no way socialist or even related.
They can give back something to society with no ulterior business motive, that is called charity, true charity.
In the exact same way that you can take a portion of your personal income and give it away for the benefit of society, charity.
So long as you're fine with making personal charity equal with business charity (percentage wise), I don't see any issue with your thinking.
Just rewatching that OP video, the exponential explosion in the 1%'s wealth in America is a symptom of how corrupt the US's capitalism has become.
Indeed. So I'm not sure why you can espouse the principles of what is essentially the US style of operating without acknowledging that the risk of an unfettered free market is quite likely (if not certainly) that sort of corruption?
In the good old days before government got involved in business, you would make something or provide a service, put out a shingle and sell it to someone else, or even overseas.
"Before government got involved in business..."? Like, 5000 years ago? You know, when people were just motley collections of city states and nothing was getting done?
Most of civilization was grown out of "government getting involved in business"!
Capitalism is wonderful when government is not involved, but once government (politicians, public servants, lobbyists) all getting their claws into this yummy tax payer money, the focus is not on workers or even delivering great products into the economy any more - it is simply about self-interest.
So answer this question then infi, instead of just reproducing more one liners:
What do you think should be the limit and role of government?
Obviously we have to have some government - I don't even think you are advocating a pure free market approach to everything, but maybe I'm wrong.
I (and most of the others here, seemingly) personally don't feel capitalism would ever function correctly without some government intervention and oversight, but clearly you feel the exact opposite, so rather than continue this rather boring conversation which is basically a list of all the things in the world that you think suck about government, maybe we can wind back and start from scratch and find out a list of all the things that you think are good - which should be a lot shorter.
Countries have done just fine throughout history when there was no government to intervene - there was even a name for these corporations: Kingdoms.
:)
Indeed. So I'm not sure why you can espouse the principles of what is essentially the US style of operating without acknowledging that the risk of an unfettered free market is quite likely (if not certainly) that sort of corruption?
He's blaming the Government for intervening to smooth out the GFC, not for failing to prevent it.
In infi-land it seems that everything should be deregulated and those sorts of wild economic surges followed by epic destruction of wealth crashes would be part and parcel, or something. Or maybe the magic market would fix it if all the controls were removed somehow and people wouldn't get caught up in booms anymore?
Countries have done just fine throughout history when there was no government to intervene - there was even a name for these corporations: Kingdoms. :)
Yeh comes back to my earlier post ... surely the divide now in the USA is economic feudalism?! Chuck in some abolition of minimum wage to crank up some wage serfs, right?
I don't get these references to a magic market like it is a mystical concept. this is how we and most other developed countries have been operating for over a century. like, it's not something that was just made up by infi.. it's econ101
In fact, what you have right now in the US is very much like you had with Châteaux and castles in France - there's lots of them, and the rich can afford them. Perhaps in the US peoples residences aren't quite as pronounced as a Château, but just look at areas like Greenwich, Connecticut; Cherry Hills, Colorado; Beverly Hills, California. Affluent mansions everywhere. You've even had rich bastards try to duplicate places like the Palace of Versailles for themselves.
I don't get these references to a magic market like it is a mystical concept.this is how we and most other developed countries have been operating for over a century. like, it's not something that was just made up by infi.. it's econ101
The 'magic market' is the notion that its a panacea for all of society's woes, given enough freedom.
The problem is the excesses of the market. In the long run, yes, things even out - but a completely unregulated, unrestrained market is a fucking nightmare of excesses. At the cost of some efficiency, regulation is a good deal for the average Joe whose life savings can evaporate because porkchops at the top like to play fast and hard with his money and the bank goes under.
Countries have done just fine throughout history when there was no government to intervene - there was even a name for these corporations: Kingdoms. :)
can't tell if serious, but in case you are, a monarchy is a system of government like any other. Just (usually) worse.
Shareholders will have a veto over salaries, golden handshakes will be forbidden, and managers of companies who flout the rules could face prison.The 'fat cat initiative', as it has been called, will be written into the Swiss constitution and apply to all Swiss companies listed on Switzerland's stock exchange.
It's amazing how far ahead of the curve some of those European countries are. We've spent far too much time trying to be like the US and look at how fucked they are now.
It's amazing how far ahead of the curve some of those European countries are. We've spent far too much time trying to be like the US and look at how fucked they are now.
Which ones are these? As far as I can see the Eurozone is pretty much going to have a depression.
The only ones who are really tearing it up are the nordic countries and they deliberately limit the amount they have to do with Europe as a whole.
*edit* plus Norway has like a gagillion oil dollars, and a sensible resources rent tax.
But you should note then that much of the success has been as a result of trade liberalisation areas that traditionally don't get that.
Education in the nordic countries is a prime example. That is not to say they don't have socialist policies as well but transparency and competition are two big mainstays in Sweden and it has had bitchen results.
That is not to say they don't have socialist policies as well but transparency and competition are two big mainstays in Sweden and it has had bitchen results.
it's almost like some aspects of "socialism" and some aspects of "capitalism" can happily live together and find a balance that results in great nations, or something
it's almost like some aspects of "socialism" and some aspects of "capitalism" can happily live together and find a balance that results in great nations, or something
Yeah they actually call it the middle road. Regulated market forces can do remarkable things.
That is a strawman; if you are going to refute my statement you should do it directly
I reckon it'a more of a red herring. infi pretty much deals purely in logical fallacies when he attempts to argue something.
He has said that the tax rate on the GDP of Norway of around 50% is scary though. Here is his chance to describe why it is scary, because society over there is healthy and things seem to be going quite well. I think the only reason he thinks it could be scary is because it will have an affect on his personal wealth but hey I could be wrong.
Southern Europe has major issues due to the sovereign debt crisis and ongoing crisis, e.g. Spain, Greece and Italy. The latter two in particular are mostly fucked because of their gross corruption and incompetence.
Northern Europe is fine and economically strong, especially the Scandinavian countries.
Yeah I don't know that I would go that far, UK growth is under 1% and they narrowly avoided a double dip recession last year. France is also heading to recession town. The US is doing better than nearly all of northern Europe growth wise. It's not a picture of economic strength.
The Scandinavians are not as strongly linked with Europe. Obviously they are more so than other non-euro countries but they have stayed out of most of the stuff that is causing the economic woes.
Either way, it's conveniently deflected the topic so infi can continue to ignore any questions of his beliefs that require responses of actual rational thought or substance.
This video fails to address the trillions of dollars stashed in the Caymans, Swiss banks etc by the 1%. So this video must be declared income, so it's actually worse than what was presented :(
What you guys are forgetting that unlimited groth is unsustainable, if you also want to talk about debt I dont think anything even compares to what the USA is in. Heardy, your euros are more due to the Aussie dollar being stronger, look at it compared to all other denominations ...
He has said that the tax rate on the GDP of Norway of around 50% is scary though. Here is his chance to describe why it is scary, because society over there is healthy and things seem to be going quite well.
If you are not terrified by the thought of government getting its fat sloppy paws into HALF of everything the country makes then we have nothing to discuss. Some people are perefectly happy making no decisions and just getting what's given to them. They like that mediocre reliable security of just getting the average. Other people like to work and keep the spoils of their work. Liberty is not for everyone.
One thing I do know is that looking at the colossal failures generated in the last 5 years of Australia's government imagine how much worse it would have been if their share of GDP had been 50% instead of the 33% it is currently.
I don't think it is reasonable that a government that has no right to tell me how to spend my money should be involved in 50% of the economy. I also do not think it is fair that people who work hard are having their money taken from them not just to create community infrastructure but to actually pay for other people's lifestyles. That is what's criminal about this new era of "socialism-lite" which has been created since ww2.
Dole out a bit of extra money to all the poorer people - they are underpaid. How will the market ever figure out what is underpaid and overpaid if all the underpaid people are constantly getting topped up by the government from increased taxation. It's completely arse about and moreover economically inefficient way of going about things.
Government is a necessary evil to maintain basic infrastructure and rule of law - not an organisation to manage the country's wealth distribution and what's fair - WTF does fair even mean it's completely arbitrary?
If you are not terrified by the thought of government getting its fat sloppy paws into HALF of everything the country makes then we have nothing to discuss.
Why is this such a problem?
Things cost money. I need housing, bread, water - I pay someone for them. Most of them anyway. Whether I get my bread from a private corporation or from the government is a factor. If the government are providing all that for my 50%, then what's the problem? I still have 50% to go spend elsewhere.
I don't think it is reasonable that a government that has no right to tell me how to spend my money should be involved in 50% of the economy.
Who says they have no right to tell you how to spend your money? You?
Who says they have no right to tell you how to spend your money? You?
governemnt is not an entity, it is not a person. the only things it is allowed to do, are the things you and I give it permission to do. why the unquestioning belief in the knowledge of government when it constantly makes such monumental blunders...
If you are not terrified by the thought of government getting its fat sloppy paws into HALF of everything the country makes then we have nothing to discuss.
Why is this such a problem?
Wait hold on - Raven did you just volunteer yourself for a big tax hike? That's fine, I don't mind, just don't volunteer me though. The ghost of Kerry Packer says you might need your head examined.
Why should other people get 50% of the money I make?
Well, if it's a tax you're not really making it are you? :)
Actually, it's an interesting way they're made it out that it's such a bad thing by saying you're "taking" money from a person. Why not think of it differently: In order to pay a person, you have to pay the government a tax.
I don't think it is reasonable that a government that has no right to tell me how to spend my money
That's because you a vapid, selfish, stupid whore who doesn't understand how they benefit from a relatively wealthy Australian community. All you want to do is pay for the things you obviously need on a day to day basis and wish away the costs of indirect benefits that you might get.
I also do not think it is fair
WTF does fair even mean it's completely arbitrary?
that people who work hard are having their money taken from them not
I like how you believe that everybody who gets some sort of welfare isn't hard working. That's a surprisingly dumb thing to say considering that about 80% of the workforce gets some sort of welfare, even if it is some sort of tax credit.
just to create community infrastructure but to actually pay for other people's lifestyles.
You are referring to dole bludger, right? How much of a problem do you think this is? 5% of the workforce is unemployed, how many of those are long term unemployed? 19%. That's right, less than 1% of the workforce is being funded while being long term unemployed. How many of those choose to be unemployed? 0.5%?
Who gives a fuck if these bums just want to sit at home all day doing fuck all? Really. They are better off smoking dope inside their shit apartment watching porn on the internet than they are out and about trying to steal their budging money.
are the things you and I give it permission to do
Yeah, and we're much better off trying to improve all Australians than we are trying to grow our individual wealth while ignoring massive problems elsewhere.
why the unquestioning belief in the knowledge of government when it constantly makes such monumental blunders...
Because every fucking organisation makes massive mistakes. Every single Agency, Consultancy, Financial, Governments, and etc, all make fucking tonnes of mistakes. This is a fact of life, and only a fucking retard would single out one organisation like it is the face of satan.
Sure, Government don't generally go bankrupt immediately when they make a big mistake (although, generally speaking, neither do large corporations either), but this isn't entirely bad. I mean, who the fuck would want to phone the Fire Brigade to find out that it isn't in operation because they can't afford fuel because of a budget problem?
Why should other people get 50% of the money I make?
Because when they spend it, it slowly pushes the quality of life up across Australia. You just want to focus on improving your quality of life, and telling everybody else to fuck off.
Because when they spend it, it slowly pushes the quality of life up across Australia. You just want to focus on improving your quality of life, and telling everybody else to fuck off.
what's more efficient, the marketplace of commerce where people exchange their money for goods and services on an arms length value basis, or a fleet of public servants doling out other people's money - all care no responsibility.
You are referring to dole bludger, right?
I am talking about any person who is not disabled or a disabled carer, or an aged pensioner. Baby bonus, paid maternity leave, first home owners grant, family tax A and B, back to school handouts, anything which is a handout to a person who is not on the bones of their arse.
infi isn't your aged care business model pretty much propped up by government subsidies?
Its ok to get money from the Government (and for infi to take that money and trumpet ad fucking nauseum about running a free market business) if you are old or sick or whatever, just not unemployment benefits, regardless of the net social good and negligible fiscal cost.
The hilarious thing about all of this is that if the welfare state was actually abolished and the free market allowed to play in infi's sector he'd be ruined.
The government regulates aged care pricing, so operators can either provide unfunded care or funded care. unfunded care would mean care recipients pay upwards of $100/day for their accommodation, 24 hour personal care and clinical services (which is still a damn good deal), however a care recipient who is approved for funding gets a subsidy and this is by far the more popular model (naturaly because the care recipient is getting someone else (the tax payer) to pay for their care) $43.22 a day.
If an operator agrees to subsidies from the government then their pricing to the care recipient is also fixed, so they cannot put up their daily fees whehever they want.
This system is being phased out slowly under a new wave of reforms which will place a lot more of the cost of care on to the care recipient. Poor people will still be subsidised by the government. The government cannot sustain the growth in the cost of aged care and I expect within another 15 years, people with the means to will be paying almost wholly for their own aged care
TLDR the aged care industry is funded by subsidy to reduce the cost to the recipient. Without the subsidy the recipient would simply pay more.
And no Hogfather, the industry wouldn't be ruined if they cut the subsidy off. All those customers would go into full fee model. Big Pharma wouldn't be happy, and staff wages would fall.
it is an arms length commercial business transaction. would you deny the contract cleaner of an army barracks is an honest worker or is he on govt tit as well. get real
What a load of shit, your entire business is directly propped up by the Government's welfare programmes and you rage endlessly about welfare costs and free market being the only way to do anything.
If you had the intestinal fortitude to back up your rhetoric you'd sell out and participate in the truly private economy. The guy cleaning the barracks is also on the tit, but he's not here giving us all shit about Government largesse, is he?
the government is a providing a service via thousands of private and not for profit companies, so you are going to deride everyone of those providers as not being free market businesses who have to balance buidgets to deliver a service on a fixed and highly regulated income. who is going to care for those aussies otherwise?
the guy who sells light bulbs to the government is on the govt tit, the guy who sells pies from his pie stand outside of the department of housing is on the govt tit. what a head of a statement.
for the record i also operate a retirement village (no govt subsidy), a child care centre (part-govt subsidy) and many commercial rental properties (no govt subsidy).
I like how whenever infi needs to actually speak rationally, he just creates a strawman and goes 'we have nothing to discuss' instead. It's just so damn adorable. You're doing pretty poorly explaining your warped little views. Even your deranged little cheerleader has gone silent.
The free market without Government interference obviously! If there is a need for a service the market is the MOST EFFICIENT way to provide it. Government should not interfere.
WWW
