New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[9th Engineer]

So then if we were able to offer every kid the same highschool education and loan opportunities for college, that would be perfect equality. Equal opportunity, then it's up to the individual to use it.

manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?

Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?

Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?

Once again, I do not agree with equal pay, I am just against the extremities. And to answer your question, those are the reasons why I don't think you can make a switch from a right-winged society to a left-winged one. If a left-winged society is going to succeed, a new system of rewards would have to be in place and I have no idea what they are or if they are even possible, I just know that our current way of living isn't the only way.

How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong

You say that like only a manger is at risk at losing their job if something goes wrong. Shit rolls downhill.

Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.

Do you purposely put words in my mouth or are you really that bad at reading comprehension? I have said numerous times that I am not a communist and I am not looking for a classless society. I am only defending some of their views because I have felt they haven't been proven wrong yet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?

You and I don't have to, we aren't paying him. That's the concern of his employer, not ours.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

To answer your question, I don't have a problem with charity groups. I support a few myself. There is a huge difference between a charity group that I can voluntarily give my time and money to, and the government that takes my money with no promise of efficiency.
....

I accept your apology [/Stephen Colbert]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

...Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc. Perhaps the increase in minimum wage will widen this gap....

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...
Yes, that's exactly the problem. Damn little incentive to risk giving it up.

And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. ...

I've heard this argument before, and I don't think it's valid. When someone "stops earning" his "production" doesn't just dissappear. Someone else, who wants to earn has the opportunity to fill the "production hole" and make money for themselves. The one who "stopped earning" has to do something with his wealth. Even if he just puts it in the bank, the bank can use it to fuel the economy.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

....
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.....

But how much more equal?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.....

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results. ...

You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"? The best cut is one thing. In our society, the guy who shot the deer gets the meat, and throws the gnawed bones and knuckles to the rest of the team.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.

If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. The owner determines how much the top end people, as well as the peons, are paid. I don't think the CEO is worth 365 times what I am, but the owner doesn't feel that way.

But how much more equal?

Whatever they determine, because they are calling the shots

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

That has nothing to do with the fact that a paycheck is a reward for skill and effort. The people you are talking about don't get paychecks.

You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"?

The one paying it... he determines what it's worth to him.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. ....

And I'm saying there would be less need for charities and "government programs" if more of that went to the front line, lower paid employees, who are generating the income, and can't afford stocks. If you pay bottom-rung employees more, there would be more incentive to get off welfare - you said as much, yourself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.