Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

$8.25 per hour vs. $8.75 million per year

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:29:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."?

What's the alternative? Redistribution?

As nice as the concept may seem, it's illfated. You can only redistribute wealth that exists at any one given time. If you are going to take this guy's money, he will know next time he will not get anything from working hard, so he stops working and what happens? Less productive output in the economy, the gov't gains no revenue. Lose-Lose.

I'm pretty sure that the executive usually cannot give himself pay raises. It's the shareholders who give him that raise, so his income corresponds to the value of his management from that CEO. In other words, they are rewarding his ability and trying to prevent him from leaving, as that would hurt them. It's mutual self interest for the shareholders to give him a raise.

For the worker, the value of his labor is low because too many are in that field. He should try and save and later invest some of his earnings into personal educational training, or try and rely on the local community or his family to see if he could get a way into say community college so he could gain greater skills. Job training programs exist too, though the vast majority of them are ineffective and useless, on both the state and federal level.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:29:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."?

What's the alternative? Redistribution?

As nice as the concept may seem, it's illfated. You can only redistribute wealth that exists at any one given time. If you are going to take this guy's money, he will know next time he will not get anything from working hard, so he stops working and what happens? Less productive output in the economy, the gov't gains no revenue. Lose-Lose.

A vast majority of the 1% are in favor of tax hikes on their income. This argument seems to be fundamentally misguided.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

I'm pretty sure that the executive usually cannot give himself pay raises. It's the shareholders who give him that raise, so his income corresponds to the value of his management from that CEO. In other words, they are rewarding his ability and trying to prevent him from leaving, as that would hurt them. It's mutual self interest for the shareholders to give him a raise.

Unfortunately you are mistaken here. The CEOs tend to control the board room, so ostensible shareholder interests are non-existent. This is what happens when companies go public...controlling interests are no longer at the helm, and parasitic management take the opportunity to inflate their accounts and construct golden parachutes.


For the worker, the value of his labor is low because too many are in that field. He should try and save and later invest some of his earnings into personal educational training, or try and rely on the local community or his family to see if he could get a way into say community college so he could gain greater skills. Job training programs exist too, though the vast majority of them are ineffective and useless, on both the state and federal level.

Well, the guy can't save, can barely make rent, and can't afford any training. He can't buy a computer...he goes to the local Apple store to log into facebook, supposedly in an attempt to network and make better of himself.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Contra's response was a standard textbook reply in favor of capitalism as we know it, but I don't think it addresses the philosophical concepts asked in the OP. I think it's a little naive. I also think that the value of executives is highly overrated when it comes to compensation.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 9:01:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mcdonalds employees 420,000 workers.

If the CEO was to give all his salary to his employees:

(8.75*10^6)/(4.2*10^5) ~ $20 per year added per person. That's if he gave all his money a year. Per hour that's like 3 cents added.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:57:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:37:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:29:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."?

What's the alternative? Redistribution?

As nice as the concept may seem, it's illfated. You can only redistribute wealth that exists at any one given time. If you are going to take this guy's money, he will know next time he will not get anything from working hard, so he stops working and what happens? Less productive output in the economy, the gov't gains no revenue. Lose-Lose.

A vast majority of the 1% are in favor of tax hikes on their income. This argument seems to be fundamentally misguided.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

This doesn't refute my point. And it is I'll admit an annoying rebuttal statement, but why don't they just "send in a check" to make up the difference?

I'm pretty sure that the executive usually cannot give himself pay raises. It's the shareholders who give him that raise, so his income corresponds to the value of his management from that CEO. In other words, they are rewarding his ability and trying to prevent him from leaving, as that would hurt them. It's mutual self interest for the shareholders to give him a raise.

Unfortunately you are mistaken here. The CEOs tend to control the board room, so ostensible shareholder interests are non-existent. This is what happens when companies go public...controlling interests are no longer at the helm, and parasitic management take the opportunity to inflate their accounts and construct golden parachutes.

So we are supposed to tax them more? The government gets slightly higher revenues?

Shareholders can vote out their CEO later, if they have enough voting influence.


For the worker, the value of his labor is low because too many are in that field. He should try and save and later invest some of his earnings into personal educational training, or try and rely on the local community or his family to see if he could get a way into say community college so he could gain greater skills. Job training programs exist too, though the vast majority of them are ineffective and useless, on both the state and federal level.

Well, the guy can't save, can barely make rent, and can't afford any training. He can't buy a computer...he goes to the local Apple store to log into facebook, supposedly in an attempt to network and make better of himself.

So here's my proposal. He can get temporary welfare payments to help him in the short run. Possibly charity could help. He could work at that location so that over time he gets the experience needed to get promoted and get higher wages (this does happen, I know).

Redistribution may seem nice, but it's flawed. Less money to the wealthy means reduced levels of investment, and this guy may be out of a job. I could support a program that invests in this guy's human capital though.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:31:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:57:39 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 2:37:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:29:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What's the alternative? Redistribution?

As nice as the concept may seem, it's illfated. You can only redistribute wealth that exists at any one given time. If you are going to take this guy's money, he will know next time he will not get anything from working hard, so he stops working and what happens? Less productive output in the economy, the gov't gains no revenue. Lose-Lose.

A vast majority of the 1% are in favor of tax hikes on their income. This argument seems to be fundamentally misguided.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

This doesn't refute my point. And it is I'll admit an annoying rebuttal statement, but why don't they just "send in a check" to make up the difference?

Ok, let me spell it out for you then.

1) We are not talking about seizing someone else's entire income for redistribution. We are talking about a more progressive tax code.
2) The 1% are not concerned over income nearly as much as they are concerned about asset price depreciation.
3) Your entire argument is a gross fallacy, which is why I didn't bother to address it. The tax code is already progressive, the maximum tax rate is historically low, people have worked hard even when the maximum tax rate was 90%. People are not going to stop working hard because they are being taxed at 40% instead of 35% on incomes over $1 million.
4) The people subject to this tax hike aren't even arguing your position. That by itself should signal to you that your position is misguided. Are they bothered by it? Of course. However, since the 1% have most to lose in a government fiscal collapse, it is in their best interest to keep the system going via higher taxes.

Fundamentally, I agree with you that lower tax rates equate to higher growth and thus more taxes. However, for those who really have no need for this extra income (the 1%, since they already have everything one can possibly imagine, except more money), this argument holds less weight.

If you're going to take Romney's position that this is going to hurt "small businesses", Romney defined his version of small business during the first presidential debate...something to the tune that the top 3% of small businesses earn 50% of the nation's corporate income (or small business income, can't remember off hand). He is NOT talking about "small businesses" but of businesses that somehow are able to qualify as "small businesses" mainly through low employment numbers, i.e. hedge funds and vulture capitalist enterprises like Bain Capital. The first 15 minutes of the first presidential debate convinced me to vote for Obama.

I support lower corporate income tax rates, but not lower taxes for the 1%.

So we are supposed to tax them more? The government gets slightly higher revenues?

Shareholders can vote out their CEO later, if they have enough voting influence.

They will not have ANY influence, as most boards are appointed and controlled by the CEO. What is the solution you ask? That is a very good question. Let me know if you've found anyone that can figure this one out.

For the worker, the value of his labor is low because too many are in that field. He should try and save and later invest some of his earnings into personal educational training, or try and rely on the local community or his family to see if he could get a way into say community college so he could gain greater skills. Job training programs exist too, though the vast majority of them are ineffective and useless, on both the state and federal level.

Well, the guy can't save, can barely make rent, and can't afford any training. He can't buy a computer...he goes to the local Apple store to log into facebook, supposedly in an attempt to network and make better of himself.

So here's my proposal. He can get temporary welfare payments to help him in the short run. Possibly charity could help. He could work at that location so that over time he gets the experience needed to get promoted and get higher wages (this does happen, I know).

The guy has been stuck in this situation for his entire adult life, 20 years and counting it seems. There is no adequate "short run solution".

Redistribution may seem nice, but it's flawed. Less money to the wealthy means reduced levels of investment, and this guy may be out of a job. I could support a program that invests in this guy's human capital though.

I fundamentally agree with you here, except that I have trouble accepting that a somewhat lower paid CEO would have trouble making money for McDonalds. The pay gap is outlandish, and this particular CEO's pay package is relatively modest.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:32:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 9:01:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Mcdonalds employees 420,000 workers.

If the CEO was to give all his salary to his employees:

(8.75*10^6)/(4.2*10^5) ~ $20 per year added per person. That's if he gave all his money a year. Per hour that's like 3 cents added.

This is a valid point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:31:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
Contra's response was a standard textbook reply in favor of capitalism as we know it, but I don't think it addresses the philosophical concepts asked in the OP. I think it's a little naive. I also think that the value of executives is highly overrated when it comes to compensation.

Obviously I agree, lol :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:59:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:31:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/27/2012 10:57:39 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 2:37:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:29:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What's the alternative? Redistribution?

As nice as the concept may seem, it's illfated. You can only redistribute wealth that exists at any one given time. If you are going to take this guy's money, he will know next time he will not get anything from working hard, so he stops working and what happens? Less productive output in the economy, the gov't gains no revenue. Lose-Lose.

A vast majority of the 1% are in favor of tax hikes on their income. This argument seems to be fundamentally misguided.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

This doesn't refute my point. And it is I'll admit an annoying rebuttal statement, but why don't they just "send in a check" to make up the difference?

Ok, let me spell it out for you then.

1) We are not talking about seizing someone else's entire income for redistribution. We are talking about a more progressive tax code.

Technically speaking, you are taking away more of someone's income for redistribution, though not in the way traditionally thought of. I'm guessing that you think higher revenues from the wealthy could translate into higher welfare benefits or tax relief for the middle class right?

It's a nice thought, but it's misguided. Increasing tax rates harms the economy by reducing savings, consumption, and investment. Also importantly, it is inefficient at gaining revenues, as higher rates means that the wealthy shift their income to other areas and to other places -- that's why Romney saved more of his money in the Cayman Islands, as it protected more of his money.

Raising the top brackets to what they were before 2001/2003 would generate about $80 billion in revenues. This is very minuscule. Unfortunately, this wealth, assuming it was all dedicated to higher welfare benefits, would not mean much for the poor, and the poor would get barely anything after bureaucracy takes its share.

So, raising top tax rates would harm the economy, kill jobs and economic growth, and cause wealth to be shifted so that new revenues are minimal. You see, it's counter intuitive.

2) The 1% are not concerned over income nearly as much as they are concerned about asset price depreciation.
3) Your entire argument is a gross fallacy, which is why I didn't bother to address it. The tax code is already progressive, the maximum tax rate is historically low, people have worked hard even when the maximum tax rate was 90%. People are not going to stop working hard because they are being taxed at 40% instead of 35% on incomes over $1 million.

They will still have less money which means less money pumped into the economy, i.e. less economic growth.

Also, IT DOESN'T GENERATE REVENUES! A nice sounding plan like you may describe COULD NOT help the poor and would harm them!

4) The people subject to this tax hike aren't even arguing your position. That by itself should signal to you that your position is misguided. Are they bothered by it? Of course. However, since the 1% have most to lose in a government fiscal collapse, it is in their best interest to keep the system going via higher taxes.

So, is this $80 billion being split into 2 now, for both welfare and reducing the deficit? This eighty billion cannot improve either situation though.

Fundamentally, I agree with you that lower tax rates equate to higher growth and thus more taxes. However, for those who really have no need for this extra income (the 1%, since they already have everything one can possibly imagine, except more money), this argument holds less weight.

If you're going to take Romney's position that this is going to hurt "small businesses", Romney defined his version of small business during the first presidential debate...something to the tune that the top 3% of small businesses earn 50% of the nation's corporate income (or small business income, can't remember off hand). He is NOT talking about "small businesses" but of businesses that somehow are able to qualify as "small businesses" mainly through low employment numbers, i.e. hedge funds and vulture capitalist enterprises like Bain Capital.

Many small businesses do get incomes high enough to be taxed at the higher rates. Look at it this way. Those 2% of small businesses employ half of all American workers. Less capital means reduced rates of investment, less money for meeting a payroll, and less take home pay.

The first 15 minutes of the first presidential debate convinced me to vote for Obama.

http://www.google.com...

The first 15 minutes of the first debate actually convinced me to support Romney.

I support lower corporate income tax rates,

Excellent choice. Corporate taxation, from an OECD study, mostly impacts the workers, as they bear over 80% of the cost from corporate taxation, as less capital for business expansion lowers potential take home pay and employment.

but not lower taxes for the 1%.

Your opinion I guess, I'll respect it.

They will not have ANY influence, as most boards are appointed and controlled by the CEO. What is the solution you ask? That is a very good question. Let me know if you've found anyone that can figure this one out.

Corporate accountability is a good idea, but I have no idea how that would work.

So here's my proposal. He can get temporary welfare payments to help him in the short run. Possibly charity could help. He could work at that location so that over time he gets the experience needed to get promoted and get higher wages (this does happen, I know).

The guy has been stuck in this situation for his entire adult life, 20 years and counting it seems. There is no adequate "short run solution".

I forgot to mention the Earned income tax credit. That is a good thing that I prefer instead of welfare. It increases the value of wages by reducing the income tax, and incentivizes working hard.

The EITC also has done much to reduce poverty rates.

Redistribution may seem nice, but it's flawed. Less money to the wealthy means reduced levels of investment, and this guy may be out of a job. I could support a program that invests in this guy's human capital though.

I fundamentally agree with you here, except that I have trouble accepting that a somewhat lower paid CEO would have trouble making money for McDonalds. The pay gap is outlandish, and this particular CEO's pay package is relatively modest.

If the pay gap were reduced, how would it help the average worker? The pay gap is represented in McDonald's prices. It's a noble thing to do for the CEO to reduce his wage and improve the wages of his workers, but it would be unrealistic.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:07:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:31:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
Contra's response was a standard textbook reply in favor of capitalism as we know it, but I don't think it addresses the philosophical concepts asked in the OP. I think it's a little naive. I also think that the value of executives is highly overrated when it comes to compensation.

You've got a point here, but some of Contra's points are pretty undeniable with regards to human nature in general. Most people, most of the time, in doing work, are going to be motivated by profit and greed at least to a large extent. That's the appeal, in my opinion, of the whole capitalistic system - it appeals to our animal nature. I am not a capitalist, merely a realistic, and in fact I probably lean more toward (voluntary, non-statist, anarchistic, decentralized) socialism... However it is important to bare in mind why capitalism is so appealing, and to take some of the lessons from there about human nature and the incentives we tend to respond to, and apply it to a better system, one that is more humane and compassionate, one not fundamentally and primarily based on profit.

The animalistic part of our nature is one that will never go away; this is an unfortunate truth. Sure, some types of socialism do seem like the perfect, most ideal system... But we are not perfect or ideal creatures. We (most of we humans I mean) are in large part motivated by greed and profit and power. We, for the most part, when it comes down to it, would rather have life success than have our friends and family have it (if we really had to choose one or the other), and we'd rather our friends and family have it then random people on the street, and we'd rather random people have it than "lesser animals", etc. In this regard most people are motivated basically by a degree of selfishness; it is for better or for worse natural, and any successful political system/philosophy must factor that in or else it will fail in practical application. So no, Contra's insights are not be dismissed just because they're the "standard textbook reply in favor of capitalism as we know it".
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:28:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I saw something about a law coming up in France that would require business executives to pay their employees at least 1/20th of how much they make off the company themselves.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:50:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."

I have an idea, lets put the person making 8.25 an hour in charge of McDonald's Corporate operations and the CEO of McDonald's corporate operations behind the counter and switch the pay for a year. Come back and see who makes more money for the institution called McDonald's, if in fact it is still in business.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:57:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:59:13 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:31:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/27/2012 10:57:39 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 2:37:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:29:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Ok, let me spell it out for you then.

1) We are not talking about seizing someone else's entire income for redistribution. We are talking about a more progressive tax code.

Technically speaking, you are taking away more of someone's income for redistribution, though not in the way traditionally thought of. I'm guessing that you think higher revenues from the wealthy could translate into higher welfare benefits or tax relief for the middle class right?

No. At this point we are no longer talking about wealth redistribution or income equality. All that matters now is federal debt relief. Taxes are going up, and entitlement benefits are going down. This is not wealth distribution.

This is why the 1% is agreeing to this. They are scared sh!tless that there will be a collapse, either fiscally or monetarily, at the federal level. They know they have to do their part, because they own most of the assets that comprise America.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant, since we are not talking about wealth redistribution.

2) The 1% are not concerned over income nearly as much as they are concerned about asset price depreciation.
3) Your entire argument is a gross fallacy, which is why I didn't bother to address it. The tax code is already progressive, the maximum tax rate is historically low, people have worked hard even when the maximum tax rate was 90%. People are not going to stop working hard because they are being taxed at 40% instead of 35% on incomes over $1 million.

They will still have less money which means less money pumped into the economy, i.e. less economic growth.

Lots of ways to counter argue this. Taxes that are spent by the government are directly pumped into the economy, which accrues via money multiplier effect, which generates more economic growth.

Also, IT DOESN'T GENERATE REVENUES! A nice sounding plan like you may describe COULD NOT help the poor and would harm them!

So, if the government gains more tax revenues, it doesn't generate revenues? Sure, bro.

Again, we are not talking about raising entitlement benefits, we are talking about cutting entitlement benefits and raising taxes.


4) The people subject to this tax hike aren't even arguing your position. That by itself should signal to you that your position is misguided. Are they bothered by it? Of course. However, since the 1% have most to lose in a government fiscal collapse, it is in their best interest to keep the system going via higher taxes.

So, is this $80 billion being split into 2 now, for both welfare and reducing the deficit? This eighty billion cannot improve either situation though.

It's not going to welfare recipients, as their benefits are being cut as well.

Are you suggesting that the 1% are an economically insignificant portion of the US economy? If so, then it shouldn't matter at all what they're taxed at. Stop whining.

If you're going to take Romney's position that this is going to hurt "small businesses", Romney defined his version of small business during the first presidential debate...something to the tune that the top 3% of small businesses earn 50% of the nation's corporate income (or small business income, can't remember off hand). He is NOT talking about "small businesses" but of businesses that somehow are able to qualify as "small businesses" mainly through low employment numbers, i.e. hedge funds and vulture capitalist enterprises like Bain Capital.

Many small businesses do get incomes high enough to be taxed at the higher rates. Look at it this way. Those 2% of small businesses employ half of all American workers. Less capital means reduced rates of investment, less money for meeting a payroll, and less take home pay.

These are not small businesses, bro. Stop drinking the kool-aid. If you are advocating tax breaks for the S&P 500, then say so. Stop dancing around the issue thinking that the top 2% of businesses in America are "small businesses." This is academically dishonest on several levels.

So here's my proposal. He can get temporary welfare payments to help him in the short run. Possibly charity could help. He could work at that location so that over time he gets the experience needed to get promoted and get higher wages (this does happen, I know).

The guy has been stuck in this situation for his entire adult life, 20 years and counting it seems. There is no adequate "short run solution".

I forgot to mention the Earned income tax credit. That is a good thing that I prefer instead of welfare. It increases the value of wages by reducing the income tax, and incentivizes working hard.

The EIC IS welfare.

The EITC also has done much to reduce poverty rates.

The EIC IS welfare. The EIC IS wealth distribution. Tax dollars go from those who pay taxes, to welfare recipients, i.e. EIC recipients. So, you are for welfare, but are against welfare. Make up your mind, bro.

I fundamentally agree with you here, except that I have trouble accepting that a somewhat lower paid CEO would have trouble making money for McDonalds. The pay gap is outlandish, and this particular CEO's pay package is relatively modest.

If the pay gap were reduced, how would it help the average worker? The pay gap is represented in McDonald's prices. It's a noble thing to do for the CEO to reduce his wage and improve the wages of his workers, but it would be unrealistic.

What I bolded makes no sense at all. Regarding the rest of your comment, you are advocating the perpetuation of gross negligence in corporate board rooms that result in outlandish CEO pay.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:01:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:50:03 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."

I have an idea, lets put the person making 8.25 an hour in charge of McDonald's Corporate operations and the CEO of McDonald's corporate operations behind the counter and switch the pay for a year. Come back and see who makes more money for the institution called McDonald's, if in fact it is still in business.

With adequate training and preparation, there is every reason to suspect that both parties would be able to perform at their respective duties.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:09:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:07:56 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:31:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
Contra's response was a standard textbook reply in favor of capitalism as we know it, but I don't think it addresses the philosophical concepts asked in the OP. I think it's a little naive. I also think that the value of executives is highly overrated when it comes to compensation.

You've got a point here, but some of Contra's points are pretty undeniable with regards to human nature in general.

We have laws that seek to regulate the darker aspects of human nature. We outlaw murder. We outlaw cannibalism. We outlaw rape. We outlaw drug abuse. We even outlaw smoking, and not buckling up in your car, or driving while intoxicated, because we seek to regulate the darker aspects of human nature.

What you argued is not a justification for inaction on this issue.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:14:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:59:13 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:31:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/27/2012 10:57:39 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 2:37:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:29:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


Raising the top brackets to what they were before 2001/2003 would generate about $80 billion in revenues. This is very minuscule. Unfortunately, this wealth, assuming it was all dedicated to higher welfare benefits, would not mean much for the poor, and the poor would get barely anything after bureaucracy takes its share.

Let me address this point directly. When you hear numbers tossed out, such as $1 trillion in cuts in military spending, these cuts tend to be over 10 year periods.

$80 billion may seem "miniscule", but $80 billion over 10 years is $800 billion, which is a sizable portion of our federal debt, about 5% in itself. This is a significant amount of money, considering that only 1% of the population is able to do this with a very, very small tax increase.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 4:00:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 2:09:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/28/2012 12:07:56 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:31:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
Contra's response was a standard textbook reply in favor of capitalism as we know it, but I don't think it addresses the philosophical concepts asked in the OP. I think it's a little naive. I also think that the value of executives is highly overrated when it comes to compensation.

You've got a point here, but some of Contra's points are pretty undeniable with regards to human nature in general.

We have laws that seek to regulate the darker aspects of human nature. We outlaw murder. We outlaw cannibalism. We outlaw rape. We outlaw drug abuse. We even outlaw smoking, and not buckling up in your car, or driving while intoxicated, because we seek to regulate the darker aspects of human nature.

What you argued is not a justification for inaction on this issue.

No offense but wow, what a patently absurd argument. Laws are created by humans. If human nature does indeed contain these so-called darker aspects of which you speak, why would the law-makers be exempt from it? Are they made of a finer clay than the non-law makers? Wouldn't they run into the same problems of "human nature"? In fact, we see that the law-makers authorize government murder, government theft, government slavery (jail) etc, on a level that would put any private murderer/thief/slave-master to shame. Murder is wrong, unless it's by and for the state. Stealing is wrong, unless it's by and for the state. And so on.

Furthermore, we see that laws don't completely work, a rather obvious but important point. Hence, people still murder people, people still physically harm people, people still steal from people. However, a far less amount of people eat other people. These trends have nothing to do with the fact that they are prohibited by law. They have to do with SOCIAL trends. Murder is not rampant not because it has been prohibited; murder is not rampant because most people in our society would either feel too bad/immoral to murder someone and/or wouldn't feel like it's worth it unless they are themselves being threatened with violence. Even less in number than murderers are cannibals, and this is not so because of the law, but because there exists widespread social agreement in our society that it is disgusting to eat a human being. It is socially taboo and off the table and we have been taught to think it's gross. Another point: The government has been waging a War on Drugs for 40 years, and weed is as popular as ever. Go figure.

Bottom line: If human nature has problems, politicians/lawmakers wouldn't magically be immune to them; if anything they'd exhibit those problems more severely, being in positions of immense power and also being far more likely, as politicians/"rulers", than the general population, to be megalomaniacs/sociopaths. And laws generally only work successfully with widespread social approval, but without that, the problems of enforcing/regulating a law that's unpopular will almost always be more expensive, counterproductive, and detrimental than whatever has been prohibited by the state. Again, see the modern War on Drugs for that, the War on Terrorism, and the police state measures that sprang up post 9-11 until now (Patriot Act, NDAA, drone surveillance, etc).
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 4:08:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."?

You are comparing two different things that aren't even in the same universe (hyperbole, not literally). The person who is cleaning off the table isn't held accountable daily to the stock price of a fortune 100 company, nor is he held responsible for past, present and future performance of this company, whose investment worth impacts thousands, if not millions of people, and should this performance slip, you can be sure that his job is on the line. He is responsible for the overall direction of this massive corporation, and the make up of its workforce. The very image of this company lies within the grasp of the CEO. To say that the guy behind the counter is the same, or should be considered in the same light as the CEO is beyond absurd, it's just ignorant to how things work in the corporate world.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 9:35:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 4:00:13 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 12/28/2012 2:09:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/28/2012 12:07:56 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:31:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
Contra's response was a standard textbook reply in favor of capitalism as we know it, but I don't think it addresses the philosophical concepts asked in the OP. I think it's a little naive. I also think that the value of executives is highly overrated when it comes to compensation.

You've got a point here, but some of Contra's points are pretty undeniable with regards to human nature in general.

We have laws that seek to regulate the darker aspects of human nature. We outlaw murder. We outlaw cannibalism. We outlaw rape. We outlaw drug abuse. We even outlaw smoking, and not buckling up in your car, or driving while intoxicated, because we seek to regulate the darker aspects of human nature.

What you argued is not a justification for inaction on this issue.

No offense but wow, what a patently absurd argument. Laws are created by humans. If human nature does indeed contain these so-called darker aspects of which you speak, why would the law-makers be exempt from it? Are they made of a finer clay than the non-law makers? Wouldn't they run into the same problems of "human nature"? In fact, we see that the law-makers authorize government murder, government theft, government slavery (jail) etc, on a level that would put any private murderer/thief/slave-master to shame. Murder is wrong, unless it's by and for the state. Stealing is wrong, unless it's by and for the state. And so on.

No offense, but the logical conclusion from your statement is that you advocate anarchy, since you place little confidence in the lawmaking process. Good luck with that. That's not really an argument as far as I'm concerned, unless anarchists can come up with some sort of viable solution that does not involve a legal process. If they can't, they are crying over spilled milk.

Furthermore, we see that laws don't completely work, a rather obvious but important point.

What's more important still is that laws work for the vast majority of cases where laws are upheld, enforced, and represent the popular will. Your argument demands perfection. I just had a discussion with an anarchist, and I categorized his statements as advocating a kind of utopia. I can see the exact same trend with you. Good luck with that.

Hence, people still murder people, people still physically harm people, people still steal from people. However, a far less amount of people eat other people.

With those laws, there are also far less amounts of murder, assault, and theft.

These trends have nothing to do with the fact that they are prohibited by law.

These trends have EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they are prohibited by law.

They have to do with SOCIAL trends. Murder is not rampant not because it has been prohibited; murder is not rampant because most people in our society would either feel too bad/immoral to murder someone and/or wouldn't feel like it's worth it unless they are themselves being threatened with violence. Even less in number than murderers are cannibals, and this is not so because of the law, but because there exists widespread social agreement in our society that it is disgusting to eat a human being. It is socially taboo and off the table and we have been taught to think it's gross. Another point: The government has been waging a War on Drugs for 40 years, and weed is as popular as ever. Go figure.

Ok, your argument resembles "soft power" advocacy. It's going to be a bit difficult to convince you if you are not innately convinced that hard power trumps soft power in every way imaginable, because people like you do not seem to be convinced that the state is capable of the most draconian actions possible regardless of your own moral sensibilities and sense of personal justice. Still, I will concede that there is a place for soft power. However, it is in no way a viable replacement for hard power.

Bottom line: If human nature has problems, politicians/lawmakers wouldn't magically be immune to them; if anything they'd exhibit those problems more severely, being in positions of immense power and also being far more likely, as politicians/"rulers", than the general population, to be megalomaniacs/sociopaths. And laws generally only work successfully with widespread social approval, but without that, the problems of enforcing/regulating a law that's unpopular will almost always be more expensive, counterproductive, and detrimental than whatever has been prohibited by the state. Again, see the modern War on Drugs for that, the War on Terrorism, and the police state measures that sprang up post 9-11 until now (Patriot Act, NDAA, drone surveillance, etc).

1) You don't think that reigning in egregious CEO pay has widespread social approval? You do know that the McDonald's CEO in this article was paid less than half what his counterparts at other fast food companies were being paid annually? His pay is actually very conservative for CEOs. The guy apparently got his start with a 6 month course in a vocational school...this isn't some elite Harvard guy or anything.

2) You've said yourself that guys like this are greedy @ssholes. You've voiced what I perceived as evident disapproval. However, you sought to lean on the crutch of human nature. I challenged you as to why you sought to do this, when action of some sort may be viable. You then voiced your concerns that the legal system is imperfect without the will of the people. Well, you agree we need action, I agree we need action. I'm certain if this matter gains widespread and consistent press, it will gain a LOT of traction, because sustained negative press coverage like this is what brought down Wall Street salaries from "Masters of the Universe" levels to something resembling non-godhood. Are you going to forever lean on your crutch?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 9:45:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 4:08:54 AM, innomen wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:58:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Bloomberg has this story up showcasing the chasm between workers and executive pay:

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The CEO of McDonalds is compared to a worker who grew up in a similar neighborhood, yet one person makes a ton of money while the other has to shuffle jobs just to get by.

Is this an appropriate state of affairs? Is it justifiable to pay someone enough to have them pay their rent, and little else, all the while the head honcho makes so much that the laborers who fuel the fast food industry profits "would need about a million hours of work -- or more than a century on the clock -- to earn the $8.75 million that McDonald"s, based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, paid then- CEO Jim Skinner last year..."?

You are comparing two different things that aren't even in the same universe (hyperbole, not literally). The person who is cleaning off the table isn't held accountable daily to the stock price of a fortune 100 company, nor is he held responsible for past, present and future performance of this company, whose investment worth impacts thousands, if not millions of people, and should this performance slip, you can be sure that his job is on the line. He is responsible for the overall direction of this massive corporation, and the make up of its workforce. The very image of this company lies within the grasp of the CEO. To say that the guy behind the counter is the same, or should be considered in the same light as the CEO is beyond absurd, it's just ignorant to how things work in the corporate world.

1) How does an annual salary hold this CEO "responsible for past, present, and future performance of this company"?

It doesn't. It holds him to short term performance, in this case annual performance. For each and every year he can dance to this music, he will receive his paychecks. If his actions cause irreparable long term harm to the company, HE DOES NOT CARE. His paycheck is NOT tied to the fate of this company. Within one year, maybe two or three for the grossly extravagant, this man will earn enough money to last him a lifetime. That money belongs to him, it matters less if the company tanks into oblivion, even if it tanked because of his ineptitude.

I haven't even broached the subject of golden parachutes, which a CEO like this can earn for as little as one year on the job.

2) No one is talking about communistic equal pay between a cashier and a CEO. This is a strawman argument and wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Until you recognize this, I see no reason to address your claim.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 9:49:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 4:08:54 AM, innomen wrote:

...it's just ignorant to how things work in the corporate world.

I'm sorry, but your naivety is frightening.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 11:42:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 4:08:54 AM, innomen wrote:
You are comparing two different things that aren't even in the same universe (hyperbole, not literally). The person who is cleaning off the table isn't held accountable daily to the stock price of a fortune 100 company, nor is he held responsible for past, present and future performance of this company, whose investment worth impacts thousands, if not millions of people, and should this performance slip, you can be sure that his job is on the line. He is responsible for the overall direction of this massive corporation, and the make up of its workforce. The very image of this company lies within the grasp of the CEO. To say that the guy behind the counter is the same, or should be considered in the same light as the CEO is beyond absurd, it's just ignorant to how things work in the corporate world.

Valid points. I think this is a perspective of someone who obviously works in corporate America as I do, and this is something I've definitely thought about. It's all true. But another perspective I hold is being of the generation that is just coming out of college, and realizing that there is little to no access to the corporate world for recent grads. Many are forced to take low-wage menial jobs, and then ridiculed when some opt or have to live at home until they're 30, overcompensate through extravagance, and automatically become Democrats.

Executives can't have it both ways, expecting everyone else to downsize while they continue to rake in record profits. I understand their value to a company; however, why are executive pay outs today at the highest they've ever been in history? I'm not only talking in $ as per inflation, but the ratio to their earnings vs. other people in the company. Yes, a lot of it has to do with growth but there's an obvious element of greed in business which is evident in so many ways. It's interesting to me that people who claim to want to be rational about money, and have no problem recognizing the human element of laziness that is apparent when a welfare state persists, tend to refuse to acknowledge the human element of greed that is also apparent when power (thus wealth, and vice versa) is concentrated at the top and so intertwined with commerce, and governance, and thus security, etc. as all of this is interconnected.

Anyway, if the CEO has so much pressure, why not expect her to come to more innovative ways on how to alleviate some of that duress via delegation - which is a fundamental aspect of management that, in my research of corporations lately, seems to be an issue for many given the amount of pressure placed on each individual.

* This is why HR and other psychological studies of work are important, but a society must also evaluate its values on how they view work... [Will post another thread about this to not derail this one: http://debate.org... ]

Also, it's naive to assume (this is in response to sadolite-- sorry I'm posting high, stream of conscious) that just because someone is a low-wage worker doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. Maybe they aren't driven, but maybe they don't have the opportunity (I know this is true of many people I know, and they don't have the resources to invest; the market isn't good for it or start-ups either).

Anyway back to innomen-- I think executives can come up with a much better, far more fair and worker friendly, and productive/ successful model such as what Costco is doing: http://www.nytimes.com...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 11:53:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 11:42:26 AM, Danielle wrote:
Anyway, if the CEO has so much pressure, why not expect her to come to more innovative ways on how to alleviate some of that duress via delegation - which is a fundamental aspect of management that, in my research of corporations lately, seems to be an issue for many given the amount of pressure placed on each individual.

What I mean is that someone could choose to split their salary up and share responsibilities, thus accountability, but also be collaborative and more innovative, etc... but people want to make as much money as possible, so they're willing to take on as much responsibility as possible regardless of how detrimental that is to themselves, their family, society and sometimes even the overall performance of the country. Going back to the value of work thread (I posted the link in my last post), people are very quick to point to the demolition of the nuclear family as a primary cause of societies downfalls, yet nobody really thinks about work and the way the workforce has changes, values have evolved, etc. to really analyze how as a culture Keeping Up With the Jones' is probably a lot more problematic than people want to acknowledge.
President of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:02:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 11:42:26 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/28/2012 4:08:54 AM, innomen wrote:

Valid points. I think this is a perspective of someone who obviously works in corporate America as I do, and this is something I've definitely thought about. It's all true.

I wholly disagree. You may work in corporate America, but you do not have the perspective of an investor in corporate America, which frankly trumps all worker rights considerations.

Ok, looks like I won't mind debating two topics with you, Danielle:

1) Corporate CEOs do not deserve their large pay rates.

2) The US military should NOT be downsized to 20% of its current size.

Tell me if you have any free time to debate either, or both, of these topics.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:08:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 1:57:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:59:13 PM, Contra wrote:
This is why the 1% is agreeing to this. They are scared sh!tless that there will be a collapse, either fiscally or monetarily, at the federal level. They know they have to do their part, because they own most of the assets that comprise America.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant, since we are not talking about wealth redistribution.

Oh, so you are concerned about the tidal wave of debt? Your first post about the pay gap made me think otherwise.

If your intention is to reduce the debt, which is a very important thing, it changes my opinion of what you are saying.

They will still have less money which means less money pumped into the economy, i.e. less economic growth.

Lots of ways to counter argue this. Taxes that are spent by the government are directly pumped into the economy, which accrues via money multiplier effect, which generates more economic growth.

The government is not really good at directing capital. There are a lack of signals and the government doesn't know how to use the money. And tax cuts have a high multiplier over time.

Again, we are not talking about raising entitlement benefits, we are talking about cutting entitlement benefits and raising taxes.

Raising taxes though is inefficient at gaining revenues. By reducing the size of the economy (taxes crush the economy), a projected $80 billion in new tax hikes may only create several billion in new income for the government.

By killing an estimated 700,000 jobs, they are all not paying taxes. Cutting spending across the board, and providing tax relief would be the thing that restarts the economy and through higher economic growth there would be higher revenues.

Entitlement reform is desperately needed.

Are you suggesting that the 1% are an economically insignificant portion of the US economy? If so, then it shouldn't matter at all what they're taxed at. Stop whining.

No, their money flows through the economy, taking this money out would cause the economy to collapse.


If you're going to take Romney's position that this is going to hurt "small businesses", Romney defined his version of small business during the first presidential debate...something to the tune that the top 3% of small businesses earn 50% of the nation's corporate income (or small business income, can't remember off hand). He is NOT talking about "small businesses" but of businesses that somehow are able to qualify as "small businesses" mainly through low employment numbers, i.e. hedge funds and vulture capitalist enterprises like Bain Capital.

Many small businesses do get incomes high enough to be taxed at the higher rates. Look at it this way. Those 2% of small businesses employ half of all American workers. Less capital means reduced rates of investment, less money for meeting a payroll, and less take home pay.

These are not small businesses, bro. Stop drinking the kool-aid. If you are advocating tax breaks for the S&P 500, then say so. Stop dancing around the issue thinking that the top 2% of businesses in America are "small businesses." This is academically dishonest on several levels.

Small businesses would be hurt. But yes I'll admit that more regular sized businesses would be hit with these higher taxes. I just don't think it's a good idea.


So here's my proposal. He can get temporary welfare payments to help him in the short run. Possibly charity could help. He could work at that location so that over time he gets the experience needed to get promoted and get higher wages (this does happen, I know).

The guy has been stuck in this situation for his entire adult life, 20 years and counting it seems. There is no adequate "short run solution".

I forgot to mention the Earned income tax credit. That is a good thing that I prefer instead of welfare. It increases the value of wages by reducing the income tax, and incentivizes working hard.

The EIC IS welfare.

Eh, it's a good form of welfare I guess, it aligns the incentives to work more, though currently it's overly complicated.

The EITC also has done much to reduce poverty rates.

The EIC IS welfare. The EIC IS wealth distribution. Tax dollars go from those who pay taxes, to welfare recipients, i.e. EIC recipients. So, you are for welfare, but are against welfare. Make up your mind, bro.

I'm against most traditional welfare. There should be strict time caps for receiving Medicaid and TANF, Food Stamps, et cetera.

The Earned Income Tax Credit incentivizes working and being productive for society, and although I'd prefer that it just lowers tax rates rather than paying benefits, it's helpful for the poor.

So through my eyes, the EIC is mostly a good idea.

I fundamentally agree with you here, except that I have trouble accepting that a somewhat lower paid CEO would have trouble making money for McDonalds. The pay gap is outlandish, and this particular CEO's pay package is relatively modest.

If the pay gap were reduced, how would it help the average worker? The pay gap is represented in McDonald's prices. It's a noble thing to do for the CEO to reduce his wage and improve the wages of his workers, but it would be unrealistic.

What I bolded makes no sense at all.

If the CEO of McDonald's gets a $10 million raise, this money does not come out of thin air. Prices must be raised, or profits must be sacrificed.

Regarding the rest of your comment, you are advocating the perpetuation of gross negligence in corporate board rooms that result in outlandish CEO pay.

Please then tell me how you would achieve corporate accountability? I'm all open to hearing your suggestions.

And contrary to what you may be thinking, I don't like McDonald's and oppose most big business.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:30:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:02:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I wholly disagree. You may work in corporate America, but you do not have the perspective of an investor in corporate America, which frankly trumps all worker rights considerations.

K good luck getting people to work for you when you don't care about their rights. And if you think "too bad," you're the problem with this mindset all together and a perfect example of why worker rights need to be recognized as important- because capitalists don't care about them (and they are important at a fundamental human level of worth, dignity and even practicality).

Ok, looks like I won't mind debating two topics with you, Danielle:

1) Corporate CEOs do not deserve their large pay rates.

2) The US military should NOT be downsized to 20% of its current size.

Tell me if you have any free time to debate either, or both, of these topics.

I'd be interested in debating variation of both of those topics, however, I don't know enough about exact percentages (numbers) in order to be able to say I think it should be cut down to exactly 20 percent. Of course, as an anarchist I think it should be at 0% but obviously I won't be arguing from that perspective for the sake of our debate, so let me get back to you on that (unless you would be comfortable with a resolution like "The U.S. military should substantially cut back in size and scope.") I'd be Pro and probably challenge you as early as today.

As for the CEO debate, the word "deserves" is going to be the semantic that comes into question, and I have no doubt that the capitalists on this site will find some kind of mathematical formula that says the CEO deserves this pay based on factors XYZ of overall revenue. However I think that analysis leaves out a fundamental human aspect for which we as a society place value, including the capitalistic framework of corporatism in itself, so to me this would be more fun as a philosophical debate rather than one based on numbers. Then again, the rates at which executives are paid and the reasons why I don't think that's reasonable are pretty mathematical, so who knows. How about we eliminate the word "deserves" from the resolution which seems subjective? "Corporate CEOs in America should be paid less" would be a position I'd defend as Pro.
President of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:08:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Issued debate challenge:

http://debate.org...

Good luck. I'm glad I do not need to hope that it will be interesting.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:11:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:30:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/28/2012 12:02:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I wholly disagree. You may work in corporate America, but you do not have the perspective of an investor in corporate America, which frankly trumps all worker rights considerations.

K good luck getting people to work for you when you don't care about their rights. And if you think "too bad," you're the problem with this mindset all together and a perfect example of why worker rights need to be recognized as important- because capitalists don't care about them (and they are important at a fundamental human level of worth, dignity and even practicality).

We can address this via debate.

Ok, looks like I won't mind debating two topics with you, Danielle:

1) Corporate CEOs do not deserve their large pay rates.

2) The US military should NOT be downsized to 20% of its current size.

Tell me if you have any free time to debate either, or both, of these topics.

I'd be interested in debating variation of both of those topics, however, I don't know enough about exact percentages (numbers) in order to be able to say I think it should be cut down to exactly 20 percent.

Fair enough. Tell me if you can think of a number or some sort of other amicable assertion.

Of course, as an anarchist I think it should be at 0% but obviously I won't be arguing from that perspective for the sake of our debate, so let me get back to you on that (unless you would be comfortable with a resolution like "The U.S. military should substantially cut back in size and scope.") I'd be Pro and probably challenge you as early as today.

Ok. Look forward to it.

As for the CEO debate, the word "deserves" is going to be the semantic that comes into question, and I have no doubt that the capitalists on this site will find some kind of mathematical formula that says the CEO deserves this pay based on factors XYZ of overall revenue.

These capitalists will be on your side, lol. :)

However I think that analysis leaves out a fundamental human aspect for which we as a society place value, including the capitalistic framework of corporatism in itself, so to me this would be more fun as a philosophical debate rather than one based on numbers. Then again, the rates at which executives are paid and the reasons why I don't think that's reasonable are pretty mathematical, so who knows. How about we eliminate the word "deserves" from the resolution which seems subjective? "Corporate CEOs in America should be paid less" would be a position I'd defend as Pro.

Oh dear. I thought you'd argue CON, lol...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?