Simplified illustration:
A - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $500,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $100,000. That leaves $200,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.

B - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $100,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $50,000. That leaves $750,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.

I don't think I've said "equal", have I?

Eventually, if the disparity between rich and poor continues to increase, the climate will be similar to 1917 Russia and 1789 France.

UT, do you disagree that

You don't think Lookout will do the right thing?

I agree with him, so I'm not the worried one.

I can no more make someone be generous than I can make them be nice.

We are not talking about you making anyone do anything.

Spexx, your simplified illustration doesn't work in economics, because it only exists in a bubble, which is never *ever* the case in the real world. This is like physics teachers who simplify by saying "OK, if we don't have any gravity, we have no mass, and also we don't have any friction, NOW how would the items collide?" We could describe how the items would collide, but then put them back in a real world situation and they don't collide that way at all,... and in economics the real world is unavoidable.

I DO disagree, entirely, that "People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is." No, to suggest that shows a weak understanding of economics. (And that's not an insult. 99% of people don't understand economics.)

It is almost impossible to accumulate wealth without generating wealth. It is wealth generation that makes an economy powerful, to grow it so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is a faster and better road out of poverty to raise the standard of living so that the poor are in effect richer.

If you reinvest money into a venture, it is creating things. If you invest the money in the market, it is being used by other people to create things. Even if you put money into a simple index fund, that money is in turn being used in the market, in scores of ways that are invisible to the layman. This creation is what builds our modern society. And if you take money out of the economy and put it under a mattress? That would lower prices.

Believe me, or take Econ 101.

Yup. I've said as much in many ways.
Money makes money for others. Without the rich there would be no middle class, min. wage or charity.

Not hot and bothered in the slightest. I definitely do not fall into your category of "CEO" wealthy (since that seems to be your other synonym for "enough,") so you haven't actually suggested that I give anything to begin with. I give what I can to several different charities, just like you do. The difference between us is that I don't look at anyone else and try to determine if they've given enough or not.

And frankly, you've shown yourself to be quite ignorant of Christianity in the past, so I think I'll stick with my own interpretations of how it fits in with capitalism.

It was a long time ago, but I had good grades in two semesters of economics.

I don't dispute what you've said, above. I would offer that it doesn't matter whether one wealthy person does these things, or many less wealthy do them. One person can invest or spend $100,000, or 1000 people can invest or spend $100 each - the results will be the same.

How so?

Well, most recently, in the discussion about tithing and the economics of individual churches.


Additionally, a quick archive search of your posts including the word "Christian" will show you that almost every single post that isn't a denigrating joke (and don't think I'm complaining about the jokes, they're often funny) is bitching about how other people aren't behaving in a Christian manner. You do a lot of that, which is ironic.

That's true, but irrelevant to the subpoint. You're so attached to your original incorrect point that you're giving up the subpoint. Cool, let's return to your original point.

We're still at our impasse, the mystical CEO who pays his/her people twice, or something, of what the market will bear. Bear in mind that the CEO does not set his/her own salary, the board typically does that. Now, this mystical CEO -- let's say it's a he, and he's running a supermarket chain. He could set the price of a can of peas to $5.00. Why doesn't he do that? He'd sure make a lot more money for salaries.

wow, i never thought i would look forward to discussing anything with DLM until i tried to discuss something with spexxvet. At least tw is man enough to just walk away and ignore the questions rather than pretend he has answered the question in some cute intellectually lazy manner.

until spexx can come up with something more quantifiable than his warm fuzzy "you know" answers i'm done here. too bad, could have been an interesting discussion.

might i suggest calling him a communist sperm burper?

None of that illustrates an ignorance of Christianity, which is what you've said. I wouldn't be able denigrate, joke, or criticize, if I weren't knowledgeable about Christianity, would I?

BTW, my experience with church "collections" is absolute truth. Are you insinuating that I'm llying?

Let's call him "the owner", so that we can say he has total power over his compnay. He could raise the price of peas. On the other hand, he could be satisfied with keeping 25% or 50% of his possible take. What's so wrong about making $100,000, if it means that you'll get better performance and loyalty from your employees, or sell more units, or whatever?

This is like the board game Risk. Have you ever played? Let's say you control Noth America. You could put 20 armies each on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 1 army on each of the other countries, or you could put 10 armies on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 2-4 armies on the rest of the coutries. Which makes for a more secure continent?

As Flint said, there is no "one number". I'm sorry that you can't conceptualize it the way he has. And no matter what number I put out there, it won't be the right one as far as you're concerned. Then it will become a straw man. All of which means one thing: I won.;)

Speaking only for myself - I will not accept, over my entire lifetime, any more than $10,000,000, adjusted for inflation. That would represent an income, from all sources, of $200,000 /year, for a work-life of 50 years.YMMV

Right -- the owner could raise the price of a can of peas to $5

What happens if he does that?

That's what happens now - you get inflation. I'm talking about a whole new way of behaving. One where greed and selfishness take a back seat to what best for the whole - economy, nation, world, species - whatever. I'm not saying that that the owner has to give up all his income, he just needs to accept somewhat less, so that others can have somewhat more. You may say that it'll never happen, that people are naturally self-interested, and won't give up any of their loot (Clod and Lookout are fighting pretty hard). Maybe I'm naive, but I see this as a win/win solution to the problem of the shrinking middle class, the welfare system, and the high taxes resulting from the welfare system. "The owner" can continue with the status quo, and continue the system of "government extortion", and the bitching that goes with it, or he can embrace an entirely new mindset, where his voluntary actions change the system.

Annecdote: My father-in-law owned a plumbing business. He compensted his employees at a higher level than he needed to. He took care of hs guys. He could have paid them as little as he could, and replace them when they got fed up and left. He could have closed up shop, if a union was voted in, and opened up down the street under a different name, without the union. He could have allowed a union to come in, and charged his customers more. But he chose to put less in his pocket.

This is like splitting atoms huh?


*thinking and wondering if I should add the dunce emoticon so people know I am joking*
* or it could be to let them know I am too duncy to get it*

I guess your A's were in macroeconomics. We're talking micro, here. Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?

.......maybe if they were really, really, nice peas?

I know it's not my question but I don't believe buying expensive peas causes inflation because there is someone selling peas for less. If I buy the cheaper peas this might make the other seller reduce prices to be able to compete.

The whole premise behind supply and demand.

Does buying an expensive product set an inflation rate? I don't think so.

However.
I noticed that sugar took a price hike. I assumed it was the cost of fuel to ship it inland. I think the same supply and demand rule applys making the people producing a product look for ways to pass savings onto the consumer.



sorry if I interupted

:biglaugha

And here's the point you're missing: your father-in-law did that so that he could retain the best employees for his business. If everyone did that, there would be no incentive for those employees to stay with your father-in-law, and the definition of "being taken care of" would have to change.

Not at all, Sky, we will need you to answer the questions if spexx completely whiffs.

No.

Here's the point your missing: his employees stayed with him, he had a long-lasting, successful business, was content with the amount of income he kept, and his employees were content with the amount if income they earned.

But my point is that the owner doesn't have to raise the price - he can accept less in his own pocket.

If your definition of winning is to avoid any real substantive discussion until others give up and walk away... yep, you win.

No, I completely get that. Everyone in this situation was happy--the employees were paid better than the market rate, and the employer had better-than-average employees. On the other hand, if the shop down the street had started offering the same thing, then some of your father-in-law's good employees may have left. And if all the shops in the state did the same thing, then the market rate for those employees would have simply been raised, and your father-in-law would have been left with average employees. He would find himself having to pay them even more to retain the good employees.

But why don't you just ask him? Ask him if he would want all of his competitors to take extra good care of their employees like he did. Your example is in fact only another piece of evidence that individuals can and should make a difference to those around them, because widespread systemic rules are ineffective and counterproductive.

it's always so easy for those who have not to demand those that have to just 'accept less'

to each according to his need from each according to his ability?

If this was a prevalent practice, spexx, no one would bother going into business for themselves. I've never met anyone who is 'content' with their income. but don't take my word for it....let's poll the audience

'cause he's dead.

Shit, they guy 's dead. That means Spexx "wins" by default. JEERS to Clodfobble.

Jim, thanks for contributing ina constructive manner.
I'm not asking anyone to accept less if they don't have enough. Don't you think there's a point where you will have enough? If you reach that point, will you just keep accumulating wealth? The little I know of you tells me that when you get enough, you'll retire and spend your life playing guitar and following Bob Weir's tour.

No. When you have enough, let others have some of what you could choose to accumulate.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You have a choice of working at a job, and not making enough, or going into business for yourself, and making enough, and you would choose to not make enough?

I have.

did you just thank me for contributing in a constructive manner?

so ....you mean like...if you are 60 yrs old, and have had a very successful business for the last 30 years....you have $100 mil in liquid assets, plus 4 or 5 homes, and your family is provided for for the next 4 or 5 generations even if they all just hang around by the pool? Then you should give your income away? to who? you?

No, why would I do that?

Nobody sane would buy $5 peas, so the grocer can't do that.

What if the grocer sets the price of a can of peas to 30 cents, drastically undercutting the 50-70 cent grocers?

Is this too patronizing?

You get the birth of Wal-Mart.

this kind of thing is what frustrates people about arguing with people like you. you perceive that lookout is name-calling, and yet...cannot be outdone in that respect. you have to say nanny nanny boo boo back. I guess it seems somehow to lack ...integrity....to chide him about insults and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Like 'he started it, mom!'


in the same vein, instead of judging clodfobble and lookout about not giving up what they have cheerfully, you could let someone who needs it more live in your nice house that's in one of the top 10 places in the country to live. and then say ...this is what i do. lead us by example since you have the answers. they seem to come to you so easily, after all.

you speak to people like you're schooling them on how to be. and all the while, we all know you're a dork like the rest of us.

If you feel that that you have enough, you don't have to give it away, just stop accumulating more.

fire everyone, and close your businesses?

you lose

I'd prefer to have a civil debate, but if Lookout insults me, what should I do? Take it like a pussy? Is that what you'd do? No, that's not me.

I have not judged them and I haven't said anything about giving up what they have, cheerfully or not.

When I have enough, I will.

Why thank you. Whale cocks unite!

He'll sell more peas.
Respectfully, you could get to the point.

Turn your business over to your child? Sell it? Work for free, because you love the job and want to keep your people employed? Work and give the money to charity? Think outside the box, LJ.

Alright. The secret is, the people he hires are in the same marketplace that the peas are. As much as we hate to think this is true, it's simply fact.

These decisions are not really made by the CEO. As much as the CEO wants to charge $5 per can - because he'll make $4.55 per can - there is no grocer in the world charging that. As much as he wants to sell the cans for 30 cents - because he'll sell more - the decision is not up to him, because at that price point it actually costs the grocer 15 cents per can. He can run it as a special to show off a low price... but only for a while.

The owner has the ability to take a smaller chunk. But so does every single other owner, and so the owner faces the same problem in pricing himself as his faces in pricing the peas.

He especially faces it when pricing labor. In the grocery business, labor costs are the bulk of the costs, aside from the price of goods sold. So as much as he wants to, if he pays $20/hour for checkers, he will go out of business because he won't have any money left. If he chooses to give smaller salaries to management, he'll get worse managers because his competition will get the good managers. His managers will leave to work for the competition. If he chooses to bring in inferior goods to take a bigger chunk per item sold, he'll lose business to quality.

One grocer can't change this system. All 100 grocers in the area might be able to - until some other chain comes to the area and runs it back. All 10,000 grocers in the country may be able to - until an alternative to grocers comes around. If there is a big gap between prices and cost of goods sold, you can bet that it will. Because the business has a built-in profit margin in the single digits, smaller than the average businesses out there. The rules of the market are clearly defined.

You can say that the market for CEOs is confused, that the CEOs make too much because boards don't understand that more people can do that job than the 1000 people vying for Fortune 500 company CEO positions. The boards don't agree with you.

You can say that the market for business owners is confused because too many owners take too much out of their businesses. But starting most businesses, especially those with employees, requires a buy-in of six figures and a rather complete understanding of the market and the profession. You can say, well people should be better owners, and on that we agree. But that problem doesn't lie in the rather forced economic revisionism you seem to espouse. Force labor and wage changes and you will just find the same owners making stupider decisions.

What I'm saying is that when, or if you prefer "if" the CEO, the managers, even the cashiers have enough, they should stop accumulating wealth. My guess is that nobody in your explanation feels that they have enough. There will be planty of people who never have enough.

spex, you are intellectually dishonest. arguing with you is pointless. you are slipperier than a greased politician.

the concept of someone 'stopping the accumulation of their wealth' is asinine. you might as well ask Lions to eat grass.

Communism doesnt work. Eventually the entitled's needs overwhelm the ability of the enabled to provide for it, and it crashes.

Survival of the fittest works...in nature and in business.

I'm not intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to roll over when I know that I am right. You may see that as pointless, I see it as overcoming objections. Nobody has yet given a good reason to continue to accumulate wealthy when you have enough. You say it'll never happen, but not why it's not a great idea.

Or humans to stop following the herds, picking nuts and berries, and to settle down and plant some crops, maybe domesticate a few animals....

I'm not talking about communism.

Who said anything about survival of the fittest? I prefer Darwin's philosophy - survival of the species.

That's what you're saying NOW, not what you were arguing in #181, which is what my posts lead back to and what I'm talking about.

yes...you are. you argue to win an argument, slipping this way and that, disregarding points that crush your argument just so you can continue to argue until you finally wear the adversary down in frustration and find some way to claim that 'you won'

you just ignored rage then? go back. check. see my previous comment in this reply.

it's not a great idea because it will never happen...Logistically, the person is either 1.continuing in business and giving his money away, or 2. closing up shop, or 3.selling it to someone else and 1. communism 2. causing the loss of employment and income for all those below him/her 3. accumuating more wealth thru the profit of the sale.

i think you are.

i did. just a few minutes ago. and....you're a communist.

In #181, I gave an illustration to justify my point that if a CEO or owner accepts less, poverty and welfare can be reduced. How is that substantially different than what I just said?

This is worse than the time I got stuck defending my Plane on a Treadmill position; which I think finally settled on:

Boy, that was embarrassing!. . . ha ha ha

#181 talked about the CEO changing the wage structure. Now you're talking about everyone accepting less. I guess we went off track when the peas were too patronizing...

...that "intellectually dishonest" label applies here as well.

And one of the more visible economic phenomena of communism is poorer and stupider business decisions anyway. Just about every good or service in the Soviet Union is on record as having had that happen.

You guys need to read up on Communism. I'm saying that people who have enough should voluntarily stop accumulating more. Did I say the government should be involved?

To that list I guess we have to add
I’ve been pretty consistent throughout.

I’ll be more specific and change that to “have enough”

I’ll stand by that.

So take it up with Bruce, too.
Once they have enough.
They can even give to charities, creating jobs for the charities. Maybe the charity can train people on the welfare rolls, and those folks can then get jobs. What a concept!
I think you’re being nit-picky here, UT.

I threw out a bunch of options. Are you trying to say that my theory is incorrect because you think there’s an inconsistency between “CEO changing the pay structure” and “everyone accepting less” (which would, in fact, be a change in pay structure – think union give-backs)????

Sounds like a straw man argument.

There is a very fucking huge and very fucking obvious difference between a "CEO changing a pay structure" and "everyone accepting less";

What I was trying to walk you through was why the CEO can't necessarily change the structure the way you posted in #181, just like he can't change the price of a can of peas, because market forces regulate everything;

And by the way, if you want to go anecdotal, I'm speaking as a former business owner whose business failed quickly, largely because I paid too highly for people;

It would have done me more good, and the world more good, if I'd figured out how to build my business without overpaying them;

And it would have been better for them not to have temporarily high-paying employment followed by sudden failure;

Because I could only pay those people for about a year before I experienced total business collapse and utter personal financial ruin.

Ok, you win. A fucking CEO can't necessarily change the fucking structure the way I fucking posted in #181. But sometimes, he can, right?

I'm sorry to hear about your misfortune.