A maximum wage - good idea?

[Revoltingest]

The government can't print any amount.

Why? There are no legal limits, only practical considerations.

And in doing near infinite sums, they would effectively destory the economy, in which money won't exist. I'm just not really sure in what way the money is infinite? It can be printed in giant sums over time, sure. That's not what infinite means.

Think of the Weimar Republic's problems with printing money & the consequent inflation.
It can be done. The real question is whether our "quantitative easing" is leading us down a similar path.

 

[Yerda]

Undoubtedly. But I'm too lazy to search it out.

I was hoping you'd save me the effort. Rats.

You know, in my experience, the higher up the ladder of authority a person goes the less they work. The least productive members of most workplaces I've been in have been the managers. Perhaps productivity rises again with the head office guys, regional managers, board members etc but I'm sceptical.

 

[dust1n]

Why? There are no legal limits, only practical considerations.

Think of the Weimar Republic's problems with printing money & the consequent inflation.

It can be done. The real question is whether our "quantitative easing" is leading us down a similar path.

Yeah, but those pracitcal situations kinda make the whole 'infinite money' thing impossible. Even if you made enough paper or bullion or computer servers to hold the number and the economy, you would eventually drowned everybody on the planet in money, and the number would still finite. You could fill the solar system with marks, and the total amount is going to finite.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was hoping you'd save me the effort. Rats.

You know, in my experience, the higher up the ladder of authority a person goes the less they work. The least productive members of most workplaces I've been in have been the managers. Perhaps productivity rises again with the head office guys, regional managers, board members etc but I'm sceptical.

My experience has been the opposite. Managers put in the longer hours, & have the greater effect on the company's success or failure.
(Of course, I've seen exceptions too. The guy who ran Ford's gas turbine program should be put in chains.)
But their productivity is harder to measure, since they don't actually assemble the widgets.

 

[Yerda]

We continue printing more and more money. If we run out of money, we can just print more. There may be consequences of that, but we can still always print more.

You can continue printing notes (or whatever the verb is for making digital money) and live with the eventually disastrous consequences, true.

 

[nnmartin]

I'm just not seeing it, nnmartin. What is it about their being rich people that is "rapidly destroying the social fabric"?

Greeed, corruption, arrogance, crime, selfishness, segregation, inequality and apathy for a start.

need any more?

 

[nnmartin]

Every place I've ever worked, I've noticed a strong correlation between unproductive workers & their low compensation.

You are looking at this the wrong way around.

for sure, if you are on a low salary you will be less keen to work hard and therefore be less productive.

But once you hit the reasonable salary mark, say 60K, you will be motivated much more to keep your job so the work rate will improve. Any extra salary increase from here on will be looked at as a bonus but will not make you work even harder.

It's easier to illustrate the opposite. Cut someone's pay, then watch their attitude & productivity fall.

That may be true, but you are using some kind of inverted logic here in order to campaign against the 100K system.

In my experience, giving someone a raise does not lead to greater productivity.

Now you are being caught up in your own logic inversion.

But if a raise is warranted, then not giving it to them will lead the to find another job with higher pay.

Of course, you are assuming that the worker can just do this by choice.

However, for most people, this is not the case. You have to accept your salary whether you like it or not.

 

[nnmartin]

We continue printing more and more money. If we run out of money, we can just print more. There may be consequences of that, but we can still always print more.

ever heard of inflation?

this really is economics 101 material.

Printing money does not help the general population and it does not increase wealth.

 

[Penumbra]

Greeed, corruption, arrogance, crime, selfishness, segregation, inequality and apathy for a start.

need any more?

Looks like scapegoating and tribalism to me.

It's their fault!

 

[Revoltingest]

You are looking at this the wrong way around.

Funny....I didn't notice you working there.
I'll trust my own observations.

for sure, if you are on a low salary you will be less keen to work hard and therefore be less productive.

A strong argument for compensation as motivation that is.

But once you hit the reasonable salary mark, say 60K, you will be motivated much more to keep your job so the work rate will improve. Any extra salary increase from here on will be looked at as a bonus but will not make you work even harder.

You find that pittance reasonable? Interesting.

That may be true, but you are using some kind of inverted logic here in order to campaign against the 100K system.

No logic employed at all. i just observe.

Now you are being caught up in your own logic inversion.

"Logic" again?

Of course, you are assuming that the worker can just do this by choice.

I've seen it happen. Criminy, I've done it meself.

However, for most people, this is not the case. You have to accept your salary whether you like it or not.

We, the non-sheep, negotiate ours once we learn our value.

 

[nnmartin]

Looks like scapegoating and tribalism to me.

It's their fault!

No, I'm not blaming the rich per se, it's more blaming the system for creating these inequalities and problems in the first place.

 

[nnmartin]

We, the non-sheep, negotiate ours once we learn our value.

again, this is a logic hole.

because the way the system is set up means that there will always be many sheep and few shepherds.

Nowadays many young people with college degrees, and even those with a Masters, can not find work.

so are these graduates to be called sheep?

 

[Penumbra]

No, I'm not blaming the rich per se, it's more blaming the system for creating these inequalities and problems in the first place.

Who is the system?

 

[Revoltingest]

again, this is a logic hole.

What a strange thing to say.

because the way the system is set up means that there will always be many sheep and few shepherds.

Sheep will be sheep in any system.

Nowadays many young people with college degrees, and even those with a Masters, can not find work.
so are these graduates to be called sheep?

Even in a flagging economy, there winners & losers.
We could call the latter "cattle" instead.

 

[Penumbra]

What a strange thing to say.

Sheep will be sheep in any system.

Even in a flagging economy, there winners & losers.
We could call the latter "cattle" instead.

I'm not really sure what the deal is with referring to people as various types of other animals.

 

[nnmartin]

Who is the system?

Hard to define exactly but it's the general sum of 'the powers that be'.

In most Western nations that would be the people that sit in the decision making areas of the government and its bodies, big business owners, bankers and the like.

 

[nnmartin]

Sheep will be sheep in any system.

Even in a flagging economy, there winners & losers.
We could call the latter "cattle" instead.

ok, well instead of having a society populated by sheep and cattle with a few rich farmers cracking the whip , why not have a democracy where we are all at least farm hands?

This is what I am aiming for.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not really sure what the deal is with referring to people as various types of other animals.

It's a way of viewing/describing people.
Some control their own destiny more than others.
It seems to me that nnmartin favors a system which would make people more similar.
I don't see that happening.

 

[Penumbra]

Hard to define exactly but it's the general sum of 'the powers that be'.

In most Western nations that would be the people that sit in the decision making areas of the government and its bodies, big business owners, bankers and the like.

So it's not the consumers?

Not the tens of millions of customers that willingly do business with Bank of America and shop at Walmart?

 

[Revoltingest]

ok, well instead of having a society populated by sheep and cattle with a few rich farmers cracking the whip , why not have a democracy where we are all at least farm hands?
This is what I am aiming for.

How is that different from what we have now?