• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If there is a minimum wage, why is there no maximum wage?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
These have been around for a while.
They are still evidence of economic regulation.

What wage control? Aside from minimum wage, the skies the limit to what companies can pay.
But on the lower level, we have state min wage, fed min wage, & Davis-Bacon (not the good kind of bacon).

:shrug: Is this new? Never heard of it.
People outside of real estate development seldom do. Approval for building permits is a long, murky & politically charged process in my experience (small residential developments to large commercial projects). One might have a fundamental right to build provided zoning laws & building codes are met, but if you want the approval process to take only a year or 2 or 3, then pay-offs must be negotiated. Example: To build a housing project in Ann Arbor, the developer must give several units to the city.

As far as I can tell, this is one of the only new economic restrictions to arise out of the recession.
Au contraire, lending regulations based upon economics & demographics have been around for decades.

US Bank. Complete idiots. I don't even know why they employ people there, if the solution to the problem isn't a box they can check in their paperwork then they can't make a decision.
This is one bad banking experience, but I'm thinking about your total experience. When I speak of banks, I've dealt with credit unions, private banking, commercial banks, foreign banks & hard money types to borrow millions over the last few decades. In my extensive experience, the very worst banks ever are RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), Citizens, & Charter One, which are owned by the British government. Behind them, we find Fannie & Freddie (largest residential lenders in the world), which are run by the US gov. All are difficult to deal with, & have no problem sending borrowers into bankruptcy rather than negotiate mutually optimum deals with distressed borrowers.

Note: Before anyone thinks I'm wealthy or successful, only until recently did my properties become worth more than I owe in loans. Think of me as some feckless loser who fails on a larger scale than most. I still haven't quite figured out how to make it thru the end of this year unscathed. But the current people I bank with (lending & servicing) are a joy to work with, & have kept me from going under.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I wouldnt be against cumulative wealth. The issue is disparity over central pay wages. The rest like investments and income earned alternatively ie royalties and such can remain as always without capping. I figure something like that encourages and helps maintain incentive.

But if, say, a company makes a special class of shares with its own special dividend rate that are only owned by directors, then it would completely undermine the wage cap.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
All are difficult to deal with, & have no problem sending borrowers into bankruptcy rather than negotiate mutually optimum deals with distressed borrowers.

That's bureaucratic ritualism, same thing I went through with the foreclosure. It's because having their paperwork right is more important than making good business decisions. I also got caught up in that whole overdraft scam they had going for a while. I'm still mad about that, even though it was a decade ago, as far as I'm concerned they straight up stole hundreds of dollars from me. It's not just one bad experience, I don't think I've ever had a good experience with a bank, only bad and not bad experiences. Trust me, I have no love for them.

Note: Before anyone thinks I'm wealthy or successful, only until recently did my properties become worth more than I owe in loans. Think of me as some feckless loser who fails on a larger scale than most. I still haven't quite figured out how to make it thru the end of this year unscathed. But the current people I bank with (lending & servicing) are a joy to work with, & have kept me from going under.

You're talking to a guy who used to go hungry when I had a half day at school because they didn't serve lunch, and the one year my mom didn't fill out the paperwork for free lunch on time was horrible. Having to find a $1.25 each day is harder than you think, but I did learn a lot because instead of eating I just went to the library and read until lunch was over. That you even had property means you're wealthy to me, heck, that you even had the opportunity to go into debt means you're wealthy to me.
 
Last edited:

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
But if, say, a company makes a special class of shares with its own special dividend rate that are only owned by directors, then it would completely undermine the wage cap.

So we just make that illegal, or include any compensation received as part of their normal wages. If they get a bonus, or dividend, or stock options, all their other employees should get a share equal to whatever ratio is set up.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So we just make that illegal, or include any compensation received as part of their normal wages. If they get a bonus, or dividend, or stock options, all their other employees should get a share equal to whatever ratio is set up.

... which would undermine the basis of employee-owned companies. If employees that didn't even bother to purchase shares will get a dividend, why would I invest in the company? I'd be better off "double dipping" by putting my investment money somewhere else.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's bureaucratic ritualism, same thing I went through with the foreclosure. It's because having their paperwork right is more important than making good business decisions. I also got caught up in that whole overdraft scam they had going for a while. I'm still mad about that, even though it was a decade ago, as far as I'm concerned they straight up stole hundreds of dollars from me. It's not just one bad experience, I don't think I've ever had a good experience with a bank, only bad and not bad experiences. Trust me, I have no love for them.
You're talking to a guy who used to go hungry when I had a half day at school because they didn't serve lunch, and the one year my mom didn't fill out the paperwork for free lunch on time was horrible. Having to find a $1.25 each day is harder than you think, but I did learn a lot because instead of eating I just went to the library and read until lunch was over. That you even had property means you're wealthy to me, heck, that you even had the opportunity to go into debt means you're wealthy to me.
Sounds like between the 2 of us, we cover a whole lot of the economic spectrum, eh.
To understand the background of different perspectives is useful.
Anyway, I'm working on being wealthy again.
Last year was a good year cuz I wriggled my way out of potential bankruptcy.
 
Last edited:

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
... which would undermine the basis of employee-owned companies. If employees that didn't even bother to purchase shares will get a dividend, why would I invest in the company? I'd be better off "double dipping" by putting my investment money somewhere else.

If the company provides shares or discounted shares as compensation, then that should be included in the wage calculations. If you just invest your own money, that's just your own investments so no one else would be entitled to that. Honestly, I don't see how any employee would object to this because instead of each individual getting a dividend of a small number of shares, all employees would get a share of the dividends received from shares owned by the entire company. You would get a much larger compensation package if you drew from the entire companies stock holdings rather than what you can afford to purchase from your paycheck.

This would really only negatively effect the salaries of top executive who receive a big percentage of company stock as compensation. The employees who think they share in ownership of the company through their tiny percentage would only benefit from a wage cap.
 

Karl R

Active Member
The Driving Force Behind Wages:
If you want to get paid a lot, have a rare skill that other people are willing to pay for. The important thing is that your skill be rare.

Kobe Bryant and LeBron James got paid $18 million and $28 million respectively in salary. Why? Because they can put a basketball into a hoop (etc.) like nobody else can.

Why does the lady who cleans my office get paid minimum wage? Because everybody can do her job. The janitors of this world impact my quality of life far more than the sports stars, but they can be replaced by anyone. And that's why they get paid the least.

CEOs vs. Sports Stars / A-List Celebrities:
Most of the comments on this thread are aimed at the CEOs, not at the top athletes and celebrities. For some reason, people get offended at a CEO earning the same (or more) as a top actor/singer/sports star.

To me, that seems odd. Those people entertain us, which we see as valuable. The top CEOs can turn around the fortunes of billion dollar companies which employ tens of thousands of people, bring us innovative products, and can help these companies remain innovative and economic powerhouses.

Maximum Wage:
If you think about it, this is like a 100% tax on all income over a certain level (let's say $5 million/year, just to keep it simple).

If you were capable of earning $25 million per year, and you had the option of staying in the U.S. (and losing everything over $5 million) or moving to another country and earning the money there, which would you choose?

We already know that wealthy people often relocate from countries with high income tax to countries with lower income tax. If you put a maximum wage on them, they'll do it faster. It's possible that they'll relocate faster.

On the other hand, the U.S. currently benefits from a problem that affects many third-world countries: brain drain. We offer higher wages than most of those countries. So when those countries try to improve their lot (by investing in the education of budding scientists, engineers, physicians, etc.), many of those professionals relocate to the U.S. ... where they will earn far more than in their home countries.

China and India have lost a lot of skilled, highly-educated professionals to the U.S. over the years.

Maximum Wage Ratio:
As Revoltingest said, this is easier to work around. Fire the janitors and secretaries. Then contract out your janitorial/secretarial service from a small company. The small company has to maintain the top to bottom ratio, but the wealthier company has just removed the entire bottom portion of their payroll.

This is ridiculously easy to work around.

My company practically does this already, just for convenience.

Tariffs and Economic Sanctions:
When you put a tariff (or import/export tax) onto goods, you limit the flow of those goods (or goods in general) in and out of this country.

When the U.S. wants to punish a country (like Iran or North Korea), what do they do? They use economic sanctions to limit the flow of goods into and out of those countries. And if you look at the economies of Iran and North Korea, they're really in horrible shape.

By placing heavy import/export taxes on goods, you're really hurting our country's economy as a whole.

Why do governments place import/export taxes on goods?
If the U.S. places heavy taxes on citrus fruits, it will hurt the U.S. economy as a whole. (Not a lot, but a little.) But it will help the U.S. citrus growers ... a lot. It will help them far more than it will hurt the rest of us. Therefore, they lobby the government to place import/export taxes on foreign citrus ... to line their own pockets.

Collectively, the country benefits from free trade. That's not much of a comfort to the individuals who lose their jobs overseas (and I support measures to help them retrain into new jobs), but crippling our own economy by trying to force us out of the global economy ... that's just going to hurt everyone.

I don't think the "unintended consequences" would be that difficult to stop.
This has to be the most hilarious statement in the entire thread.

In 1920, the U.S. passed laws forbidding the manufacture, sale and transport of alcohol. They did this to prevent drunkenness and promote a safe, sober and law-abiding society.

Thus began the rise of organized crime in America. One big unintended consequence.

Prohibition was repealed in 1933.

Organized crime is still here.

Apex,
If unintended consequences are easy to stop, why don't you come up with a solution to organized crime.

I think the minimum wage should be nullified. Let each company pay as it wishes. Each employee can seek employment as they wish. If the wage is too low, they can go elsewhere. Or start their own business.
And this is the second most naïve statement in the thread.

Minimum wage workers don't have options. If they had the skills to get a better job, they'd already be working at a different job. If they had the money to move to a city where the economy is booming, they would have moved already.

Minimum wage is a poverty level existence (this varies with the number of hours you work and the number of dependents you have). It doesn't give you options. You have food to eat, but not the option to eat nutritious food. You can afford a cheap apartment, but you can't afford one in a safe neighborhood, or a neighborhood with good schools.

I've lived near the bottom end of the wage scale for a few years. I was able to get out of that existence, but only because I had advantages that most minimum wage earners don't have: a good education from pre-K on up.

If you're serious about changing the world for the poor:
Promote education for everyone. Start with pre-K education, since it turns out that has a huge impact. Provide adequate nutrition to children, since that also has a huge impact on their mental capabilities later in life.

In addition to helping the poor, this will help the economy as a whole. Every top economy has an educated workforce. China and India are moving up because they've improved the education of their workforce.

It won't change the world today, but it will change the next few generations.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If the company provides shares or discounted shares as compensation, then that should be included in the wage calculations. If you just invest your own money, that's just your own investments so no one else would be entitled to that. Honestly, I don't see how any employee would object to this because instead of each individual getting a dividend of a small number of shares, all employees would get a share of the dividends received from shares owned by the entire company. You would get a much larger compensation package if you drew from the entire companies stock holdings rather than what you can afford to purchase from your paycheck.

This would really only negatively effect the salaries of top executive who receive a big percentage of company stock as compensation. The employees who think they share in ownership of the company through their tiny percentage would only benefit from a wage cap.
"Employee-owned company" doesn't mean that every employee owns shares. At the employee-owned companies I've worked for, there was a fixed number of shares, and new employees weren't able to buy in (or buy more) until shares became available when someone quit or retired, and when that happened, there was a formula (usually involving either seniority or level in the company hierarchy) that determined who could buy shares. In practice, it often meant that only the senior, higher-level people owned shares. They were bought with the people's own money, but still - they marked a line between the top end and bottom end of the company hierarchy.

When a company like that has a lot of dead-end, high-turnover jobs at the bottom of the pyramid, it means that measures that shift money from "wages' to share dividends does nothing to fix the income disparity between the bottom and the top.

... especially, as I pointed out, if the company has multiple classes of shares with different rules and different dividend rates.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
"Employee-owned company" doesn't mean that every employee owns shares. At the employee-owned companies I've worked for, there was a fixed number of shares, and new employees weren't able to buy in (or buy more) until shares became available when someone quit or retired, and when that happened, there was a formula (usually involving either seniority or level in the company hierarchy) that determined who could buy shares. In practice, it often meant that only the senior, higher-level people owned shares. They were bought with the people's own money, but still - they marked a line between the top end and bottom end of the company hierarchy.

When a company like that has a lot of dead-end, high-turnover jobs at the bottom of the pyramid, it means that measures that shift money from "wages' to share dividends does nothing to fix the income disparity between the bottom and the top.

... especially, as I pointed out, if the company has multiple classes of shares with different rules and different dividend rates.

Well, like I said earlier, imposing a maximum wage or min/max wage ratio would probably change our whole economic system, especially the way companies pay employees. So I don't disagree with you that it would drastically effect employee owned companies or stock options or employee bonuses, it would mean fundamental changes to our whole economy. I'm not arguing that it would be business as usual except with a wage cap for the employees at the top, I'm just saying that change might not be so bad.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
What failed miserably? Companies were in business and employed lots of people. What's the problem?
And slavery built the pyramids, one of the greatest achievements of mankind. Doesn't mean it is a good business model or form of employment though.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
That's spurious. The non-existence of a minimum wage doesn't equate to slavery. All it means is that the market sets the value of the wages for each particular function, instead of the government.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Remember that the same people who would engineer this max/min wage law are the same people who got us into the Iraq & Afghan wars to make us more secure, run the TSA to protect us, are illegally spying upon us, & instead of bailing out under water homeowners, bailed out the lenders, while letting the homeowners go bankrupt. Trust them to do a good job in further restricting economic behavior? I won't

It's not like business (or capitalism) has the greatest track record either.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The Driving Force Behind Wages:
If you want to get paid a lot, have a rare skill that other people are willing to pay for. The important thing is that your skill be rare.

Kobe Bryant and LeBron James got paid $18 million and $28 million respectively in salary. Why? Because they can put a basketball into a hoop (etc.) like nobody else can.

Why does the lady who cleans my office get paid minimum wage? Because everybody can do her job. The janitors of this world impact my quality of life far more than the sports stars, but they can be replaced by anyone. And that's why they get paid the least.

CEOs vs. Sports Stars / A-List Celebrities:
Most of the comments on this thread are aimed at the CEOs, not at the top athletes and celebrities. For some reason, people get offended at a CEO earning the same (or more) as a top actor/singer/sports star.

To me, that seems odd. Those people entertain us, which we see as valuable. The top CEOs can turn around the fortunes of billion dollar companies which employ tens of thousands of people, bring us innovative products, and can help these companies remain innovative and economic powerhouses.

I don't think anyone want to acknowledge your comments. Those against CEO's compensations do not want to acknowledge what you put forth. It just doesn't fit their view of the world.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone want to acknowledge your comments. Those against CEO's compensations do not want to acknowledge what you put forth. It just doesn't fit their view of the world.

Too true. The most common complaint I hear is that a company did poorly, yet the CEO got millions. I'm sure there have been athletes that performed poorly, yet got paid millions as well.
 
Top