Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Fair National Wage Scale

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 11, 2014, 4:37 a.m. EST by donOld (134)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You’ve just been asked by the President to design a fair national wage scale. If the highest paid workers make 100%, what percentage should the lowest paid workers make? How many categories would you put in between the highest and lowest paid, and what percentage would each category pay? What types of jobs would be typical in each category?

Here’s an example:

6 categories total

category 1 pays 25% - minimum-wage retail jobs

category 2 pays 40% - college-degree jobs?

category 3 pays 50% - skilled, college-degree jobs?

category 4 pays 60% - university-degree jobs?

category 5 pays 75% - skilled, university-degree jobs?

category 6 pays 100% - highly skilled, professional jobs?

What would your recommendations be?

78 Comments

78 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by elf3 (3779) 3 years ago

Wages aren't the problem...it's that they aren't keeping up with inflation and the cost of products. What corporations predominantly monopolies and multinational conglomerates have done is to freeze wages over the last 15 years while steadily over-inflating the cost of products and hording profits at the top. I suppose they can do this because they have little competition and the competition they have isn't really their competition...because in actuality they work together to price set products so can't find them any cheaper. So while the workers still need things to live and function in the system...their incomes don't enable them to. They cant find better wages because there are fewer jobs since they mostly went to China or some other brutal working condition place and corporations also work together to price set wages. And that is why America and any other country with the same practices will falter. This I call Forced Reliance. Iceberg ahead friends ...iceberg ahead.

[-] 5 points by SerfingUSA (451) 3 years ago

Yes, and our societal model is obsolete. All we need to do is watch the actions of TPTB for confirmation. They've lost all respect for the long term viability of our present societal model. They no longer even try to conceal their corrupt control of banking, politics, business, lawmaking, education, MSM, etc, etc. The .01% know their model can't survive the changes. That's why there's a lawless feeding frenzy going on at the top.

The cat's outta the bag. They want to get themselves as high above the fray as possible and cash in their chips before the SHTF. The 1% (.01%) know this model of society is collapsing. It's their society, they own it, and they are the ones showing no respect for it or it's sustainability!

The future will bring increasing technology, automation, globalization, neoliberal trade policies, monopolies, productivity increases, corruption, etc . We can forget about the average worker having unions, good pay, benefits, rights, upward mobility, etc. Under this scenario, labor will continue to be less and less valuable and needed.

The sad fact is that the 1% are leaders. The 99% are followers. The 99% are like boiling frogs watching the 1% construct a neofeudalistic gallows for our future. If we don't collectively jump out of the boiling pot we're doomed. The 99% have to stop looking for leaders, and start leading ourselves. Our 1% leaders have Big plans for themselves, but not for us.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3779) 3 years ago

Yes ...to be less than even a slave. A slave is needed but in this system...we could poof away without a ripple in the machine...less than cogs...we are no longer essential to the equipment. I think that we have become so replaceable that our existence is rather like a conveyor belt full of rice. When some of us fall off, it isn't even noticed. This is the new corporate world order. Human beings are products, no different than a cow in a field who is kept fed and never realizes they were not free until you one day learn your sole purpose of existence was to give your being, body, and life for someone else to eat, and by then as you round that corner to your death...it is too late to escape it. There is a book The Five Regrets of the Dying ...the one said most often is I wish I didn't work so hard...followed by I wish i'd had more time with loved ones...followed by I wish I had lived more authentically and followed my passions. We have been taught somehow it is our own inadequate decisions that brought about our regrets..the reality is that there is very little ability to choose this decision. Very soon it will disappear completely. Think of the Chinese workers. That is the model of corporate success. This is the world we now live in.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=chinese+factiry+workers&FORM=HDRSC2

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

So use public capital to eliminate the need for debt and profit and pass all of the cost savings along to workers. This has exactly the same effect as raising wages, but without the inflation.

[+] -5 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

It's a contradiction to say that corporations that make their money from free markets have no competition. And so it makes no sense to say that corporations limit wages because they don't face competition. A corporation facing competition is forced to pay MORE for employees who can make a difference in the competition with other companies. If you don't pay enough then the next company will and you'll lose the talent, and then that effective employee will be working against you instead of for you.

To be honest, this conversation isn't about those employees. This conversation is about the employees who are NOT effective in helping a corporation compete against other corporations. The free market doesn't look after the interests of those employees because they don't matter that much in terms of the bottom line. If they did then they would be compensated better for it.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3779) 3 years ago

Ha ha ha talent um have you ever tried to deal with customer service? What happens when you dumb down wages for the cheapest labor. You are full of bullshit. A little example.

American company like Bechtel Parsons for example bribes an African government to cut down a forest so the y can privately sell the lumber or farm the land. The civiliand now can't live there or hunt their own food or farm. They have no choice but to go into the city and ask the same company for a job cutting down trees in order to make wages to live in houses the company builds with the lumber they cut down. As more and more people lose their self reliance or rather have it stolen...they must rely on the company for survival but must compete with others like themselves...the company doesn't have to offer good wages or cheap housing because what else are they going to do and there are so many others like themselves who need work? Per government mandate and various laws and tape.only the company can cut down the lumber. It is forced reliance. If you try to do it without passing through the bribe driven red tape you will be arrested plus you lack equipment and start up ability or capital to even possibly think of doing this. Since the only lenders have stock in the lumber company they will never lend to you to compete with them.

And while no body blinks at this when it is Africa... they have now come for you. That is the new business model. Unlimited lobbying and contributions ( aka bribery) and outsourcing in America has made the American worker obsolete. As have monopolies drowning out competition and bribing the government and stealing the market...they price set jobs for the cheapest labor. Because what else are you going to do...start your own business and compete with a multinational conglomerate who owns the land, politicians, resources - or ask a bank who is heavily vested in them for a loan to compete with their interests?

Find me a stand mixer that is less not just within a few dollars at every retailer ( except Amazon which I will address a bit further). They have set this kitchen appliance made by Chinese .nbslave labor at a ridiculous mark- up. As long as they never lower it if aconsumer wants one then they must meet that price. The stores won't ever lower it...because nobody sells it for less.

Unless you are Amazon who is undercutting big box stores by middle-manning it direct from the Chinese factory and I can't wait to watch them put big boxes under who surely have it coming. Rest assured though when they are gone and Amazon stands alone they will jack up prices just like big box stores have done. When the competition is sparse the choices are gone. You can pay or starve. Pay up butter cups...a ceo needs a yacht...and you dear employee are just a liability on their spreadsheet groveling for fewer and fewer positions trying to afford the resources that are over- inflated by the same companies who are also surpressing your wages.

It is all fine and good and glee when its just a stand mixer but what happens when it is food, or oil/ gas, housing, or medical care, or medicine, or things we NEED?

Africa is in turmoil for a reason. Desperate needs call for desperate measures. When people rebel and begin to take what they need..tptb pay warlords to fight them. Hello Blackwater, hello Haliburton, hello Dyncorp. These will be our warlords protecting corporate interests.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You and I are both saying the same thing: people who are good at business development earn more.

[-] 5 points by elf3 (3779) 3 years ago

Hey, I have a good opportunity idea for you ...it makes a ton of money I think you could really run with it. I think you should work with your favorite lobbyist to legalize child prostitution. There is a really large market for it and definitely opportunity to make a vast sum. It seems right up your alley...hey as long as there is a market then who am I to stop you? Money is king after all...right?

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3779) 3 years ago

A palace is a temporary construct whose occupants generally become subjects to the world they helped create. So while you enjoy your castle please imagine what it will be like for you and your children when you are forced in with the masses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and in that system ...those with power will always be subdued by the one with the least moral boundaries. It is a race to the bottom.

[-] 2 points by donOld (134) 2 years ago

This is really cool... Say a national incentive rate is set, but the incentive distribution policy is left up to each employer to determine for themselves. Here's a simple example, for one employer, that has 10 people working 10 hours each for a total of 100 hours.

For each 100 hours of work, an incentive rate of 20% would give the employer 20 more hours to reward his most critical staff. If all of the 20 hours went to the top guy (top 10%) then he would earn 10 hours regular pay + 20 hours incentive pay = 300% of the hourly pay rate of the other 9 workers. If only 10 of the 20 hours went to the top guy, and the other 10 hours went to the next 2 most important workers, then the top guy would earn 10 + 10 = 200%, and the next 2 guys would earn 5 + 10 = 150%.

If the company size is increased to 100 workers, the top guy becomes 10 guys, and the next 2 workers become the next 20 workers. If you spread the incentives down 3 pay levels you can end up with 200% (top guys) 166.67% (next 10% of workers) and 133.33% (third 10% of workers)... which seems reasonable to me.

Sorry about the edit here, but I was at work and ran out of time on the original post.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

What is the point of the government dictating this wage system if you end up with some workers making three times as much as the rest? I thought that you were trying to mandate fairness and equality but this idea doesn't get you there. You would still end up with a one percent.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 2 years ago

The government isn't dictating the wage system, it's only controlling the maximum inequality in the system. I am suggesting this idea here because no one supported true equality. The incentive idea would not create a 1%.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

What happens when some of the people making twice as much decide to invest some of their extra income in starting new ventures? Some will be successful and then they'll end up earning WAY more than the baseline. Then you'll have a one percent. Outlawing business ventures is your only option for keeping everybody equal.

[-] 2 points by donOld (134) 2 years ago

What if "social incentives" boosted earnings in the most important jobs? Say the top 10% earned 200% of the average income, and the next 20% earned 150% of the average. I'll leave it to you to define what the "most important" jobs might be, but certainly surgeons would fit into the top 10%. Would this provide enough incentive to satisfy you?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That's already how it works, except that the relative importance of different positions is determined by the job market, not by a central government planning board.

[-] 2 points by donOld (134) 2 years ago

Exactly! The relative importance of different positions would still be determined by the job market but there would be a cap on the spread between the highest paid and the lowest. Currently there is only "what the market will bear" to reign in ridiculous incomes and it doesn't seem to be working all that well if you look at the stats.

Love your reference to "a central government planning board"... ooohh scarey, the communists are coming!!! Are the Bank Rate, the Tax Rates, the Welfare Rates, and a hundred other rates that affect us, not already set by the same central government planning board?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

What part of the job market do you think is not working well? You just don't like that some people earn a lot more than others?

[-] 2 points by donOld (134) 2 years ago

The bottom 80% and the top 15%.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Your reforms wouldn't affect the top end of the earnings scale very much, since most high earners don't earn their income through wages. To drag those people down to the level of everybody else you would have to outlaw starting new businesses, or growing existing businesses. Actually you would have to outlaw business ownership in general. Otherwise successful entrepreneurs will end up with a lot more than everybody else.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

Instead of a minimum wage, or any sort of wage standard, what we really ought be arguing for is a "piece of the action."

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

o.k. so does every worker get an equal piece, or are there different categories of "pieces"?

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

Of course there would be categories. We hate to admit it but some people for whatever many reasons do get better deals than others.

I suppose we are talking different things here ( I admit I was trying to shift the subject some.) I was referring to the problem of setting ( e.g. raising) a minimum wage, or any wage for that matter; not long after a wage gets raised, it soon gets overwhelmed by inflation and people end up in the same boat they were in before the wage was raised. We need to get away from wages....

But you're asking what to me would be a fair compensation range amongst different working people. Well, ok then: I personally think the minimum wage for beginner's work is fair, but I also think too many people who are not really beginners are getting shafted into that sort of work, or rather paycheck. I think school teachers, seasoned, and skilled labor are generally underpaid and need to be paid about 1.5x more. I think white collar professionals, e.g. engineers, accountants, are paid about right, but inflation is quickly wiping them out. I believe medical Doctors are getting paid about right. I believe Wall street types, Big Corp CEOs, and big bank bankers who make $$$billions off "investments", cutting "overheads", and downsizing companies are criminal scum that really should be in jail.

[-] 2 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

So if I understand you right, you're saying that a fair spread between a minimum wage income ($16-18K/yr) and the highest professional incomes ($240-270K/yr) should be somewhere around 15 times?

Leaving aside the ridiculous incomes of the CEOs, bankers, movie stars, musicians, and athletes, consider what this really implies. It means that IN JUST 3 YEARS, a professional can earn the entire LIFETIME earnings of a minimum wage worker (assuming both work for 45 years of their life). Is it really fair to penalize those born with less natural talent so severely? They had no control over the intelligence or abilities that they inherited. They want to give their kids a rich, full life of opportunities too. They need respect and dignity for trying their best just as much as the professionals.

I am not attacking your answer, I'm just asking these questions to see if you ever really thought this all the way through. If you have, great, I have learned something important here.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

Should an accomplished medical doctor earn substantially more than a kid out of high school who has yet to figure out smoking pot is bad? The answer is definately yes. The real question is why are so many people who honestly should be earning more only earn wages meant for entry level jobs. The reasons I'm sure are many, but none have to do with the fact that minimum wage intended for entry level postions is low.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

If the kid out of high school is content to spend the rest of his life working some tedious, repetitive job at Walmart or McDonalds, even though society pays you to get the skills and knowledge you need to do a job that really turns you on, then I'd say yes. This person is probably already working at his full capacity. If he puts in the same time working as the doctor, why shouldn't he be rewarded equally for offering his time and his abilities to society? Who has the right (or wisdom) to tell him that his equal right to enjoy life was cancelled because he lost in the gene pool.

Look around the shops next time you are out. There are a hell of a lot of middle-aged people working for the minimum wage out there. What percentage of employees ever get the chance to move up the corporate ladder? Look at the income stats. Entry-level wages remain the norm for millions of workers.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

Reality is with good genes comes privalege. Ask any blond. For the rest of us, its nice if we don't get screwed.

Yep, there are a lot of people who are working for wages less than what they should be. I said that in my original post. But that does not have anything to do with a minimum wage meant for kids out of high school.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

The minimum wage was not set to lower wages so that employers could hire "kids out of high school". The minimum wage was set to protect people who are desperate enough to accept a shitty paying job from being totally screwed by their employers. The reality (now) is with good money comes privilege.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

I must agree with you on this facet. You expose a fallacy here; minimum wage by its definition sets the wage for minimum paying jobs. Minimum paying jobs being inherently those entry level jobs where workers have yet to achieve competence. Yet the wage is to address older more seasoned workers who are out to feed themselves and a family. Should the minimum wage be set at such a rate, employers could not accept the risk in hiring anybody new, not to mention the impossibility of making a payroll, and putting out a product priced reasonably enough that most people can afford. More sense would be to have a sliding wage scale that sets fair standards to the type of work performed. Actually that already exists as government scale wages that all entities doing business with the government must comply with. Unfortunately, not all companies do business with the government. Maybe what ought be fought for is extending the government wage scales to all companies who do business in the U.S.A.?

Then there is the problem of seasoned people doing entry level work because there is no other work around. Example is this business of mowing lawns which I see so many adults doing these days. I remember doing that when I was a kid. I did it for way below minimum wage at the time, and was quite happy. I learned to work, I had a few nickels in my pocket to buy a candybar, and most importantly I was able to help out somebody who needed a little help. These adults mowing lawns however, want real money ( in all fairness 'cause the need to feed a family.) Though I'd love to help them out, and they'd help me out by cutting my lawn, I can't hire them 'cause in doing so I'd break my own piggy bank, (and the kid I would hire but can't 'cause the adult is standing there has nothing better to do, is out causing trouble.)The situation sucks. But the root cause of all this is not the minimum wage, but rather the lack of real jobs and an inflating currency 'cause some Wall Street wackos on are messing up our economy and making wars.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 2 years ago

o.k. people, let me ask you 2 more questions. In an "ideal" but unequal hourly pay rate system, WHO gets to decide what each hour of work is worth, and what criteria would be used to make that decision.

Would it be the "machine mentality" that suggests a person is only as valuable to society as his output. Would it be the difficulty of the work itself? If so, then how would you justify the discrepancy in wages between a paper boy and a mail man who both do the same basic job?

Would it be a "what's-in-it-for-me" value appraisal based upon what's most important to you (a doctor or a tattoo artist)? Or would it be a "let-the-market-decide" system where a bunch of strangers who know absolutely nothing about the workers attributes determine what they are worth?

Just a few ideas to get the ball rolling.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The market decides. That's why it's called "the job market". Supply and demand. Postal workers get paid more than paper carriers partly because there are fewer people who qualify by passing the civil service exam.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Now that the GOP have the largest majority in over 60 years do you think the odds of doing this will improve next year?

[-] 4 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

Forget the existing political parties. Expecting them to change is a waste of time. Use democratic force to vote in a third party that is serious about justice and equality.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

do you believe a third party will be allowed to get elected ?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

jim morrison said "they got the guns but we got the numbers!"

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

but they make up they rule we follow

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

Not always

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

Work out a solution that benefits average workers so clearly that it goes viral, then channel that democratic force into a majority government with a new president. To try and stop it would be to admit that democracy is not allowed.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

I'm not sure there is an average worker

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I suppose if you can forget the evil that is the GOP you can forget anything, meanwhile the GOP rule thanks to folks like you.

[-] 7 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

The two existing parties are both bought and paid for by the same fucking people. Neither one of them gives a shit about the natural human rights of workers. Voting for them is simply choosing how you want to get beat up, with a club or a pipe. Either way it's going to hurt.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

So you are doing all you can to help the GOP win I understand you are that kind of person the Nader kind the kind that put W Bush in the White in the first place the kind that can't tell the difference between Al Gore and W Bush you are the kind of person that killed the planet, in other words you are an IDIOT

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

oh god

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

how thoughtful.....oldDon tells the same story that has been told for decades, Nader told it when he was helping elect W Bush, this is the story that the 1% depends on to stay in power you bunch are all fools dancing to the 1% tune

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

ok so lets talk about nader - he says the left and right (grassroots that is) agree on 4 issues. 1 end the empire 2 stop outsourcing jobs 3 bail out mainstreet and not banks and 4 end the attack on civil liberties. ok so both parties leadership disagree with the majority of the american population and side with the 1% on these issues. agreed?? so if we defeat the gop we still have a party that will continue all 4 policies that are destroying the country and the world - no? now if you disagree on this i would like some facts and not your usual rant "are you happy your party is winning" - it is not very honest or intelligent. there are only two here who think your standard line makes any sense. most here understand each other even if we disagree on the details of strategy - not you - no not you. so why is that

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Only by removing the threat of the GOP can the Dems be split apart to create any sort of new party. Nader assisted in putting W Bush into the White house that was his answer more GOP rule, I do not support that I do not support another 20 years of the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else, if you can show me how what you do doesn't elect the GOP then fine but you haven't and can't and you don't care all you care about is co-opting OWS for your own stupid party.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i din't see any mention of the 4 issues? why is that? coward

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I don't see any mention of how we keep the GOP from winning if we can't do that none of your shit matters, coward.

and besides every one of them are made worst by electing more GOP which is what you do, tell me which of these 4 are made better by more GOP in Washington if you don't want to tell me how we avoid them.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

and which ones are made better by the dems. remember i have access to google! so let's see - obama prosecuting more whistle blowers than all presidents combined. bases overseas - expanding rapidly - jobs flowing overseas (remember tpp and fast track?) and how about the banks - let me think now. how about larry summers and little timmy geithner - ring a bell

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I get it you hate the Dems and think the GOP are better so you attack the Dems and help elect the GOP, I got it, you love the GOP

Didn't he end the Iraq War and aren't we pulling out of Afghanistan and he ended torture the second day in office at least according the Torture Report he did.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

civil rights - nice try - it was civil liberties you dimwit. do i need to remind you of the 4 points? you are weak aren't you. no integrity or honesty. and here at a website for radicals - how very weak. ok - here they are - civil liberties (in case you forgot in the last minute) - the empire (that would be the 1000 bases around the world and the bombing etc - in case you are as stupid as it seems) - outsourcing jobs and then the bailout of wall street not main street - i assume you do not need an explanation on those but one shouldn't assume

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

so when your man W Bush invaded Iraq that wasn't an expansion of empire? why do you support the invasion of Iraq? you see I feel pretty strongly that had Nader seen that difference that invasion would not have occurred so why do you support it?

That's a question....

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i get it - you like to answer the questions you ask not the ones i ask - i get it

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

civil rights are made better by the Dems, run to google and check, now tell me why do you love the GOP so much?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i don't have a party - stupid or otherwise. as for your opinion here - "Only by removing the threat of the GOP can the Dems be split apart to create any sort of new party." - it is an opinion and that is all. you may be right - maybe not but you can't seem to admit that. you seem to think you know the truth - how can that be. you are either dishonest - stupid or very young (usually the same thing). i am not telling you to stop working for your dems - my wife does. you tell all that it is the only path - are you really that stupid. you are a waste of my time. i have better things to do - like going to an occupy gathering today. why don't you show up instead of hiding on a chat room! show up and we can discuss your opinions in person - wiht occupiers involved. let's see what they think of your opinion. maybe those az occupiers like your plan (doubtful) but those here in nyc will run you out of the room

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Your only purpose here is to co-opt OWS for the Greens the proof is seen everyday in your posts which ignore the GOP which make all 4 of the issues you listed worst, you are clear in your intentions.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

How are we ever going to achieve social justice and eliminate poverty if no one has any ideas about what "fair" pay would look like? Please set aside, for a moment, all of the disempowering thoughts about "what's wrong" and focus on "what's right".

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Bottom wage for any type of work/endeavor/industry etc etc etc etc = bottom wage = 40 hours a week at an income which would allow one person to work and afford a home and a spouse and kids afford to seek medical care routinely and put money into savings and/or investments - put money towards kids higher education and take family vacations no less than once per year at a minimum of a week. No doubt this listing is not complete - but should suffice to give an idea of what is required as a minimum wage.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

I think you got that right. If there is going to be a wage, it then ought not be set against a dollar value, but against a certain "lifestyle standard."

Personnally, in utopia, I believe wages should not even exist, but rather that everybody gets share in the total take; and that the minimum share should be enough for a person to decently live on.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

But what about the spread between the lowest paid minimum wage worker and the highest paid professionals... how big should that be 2X, 3X, 4X, 50X, 100X...?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

I really don't care what the top earnings are - as long as the very least earnings support a good life.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

The problem is, if the top earners take too much of the pie, what's leftover isn't enough to feed the minimum wage workers' families. We already tried working harder to make the pie bigger, but they took even more of it and left us even less.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

The problem "is" that this delusion is allowed to exist.

The success of society - depends on the whole of society - the least amongst us - takes care of essential services - so that those who are further gifted can provide means of growth.

The gifted of thought do not prosper - without those who work and make thought a reality.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

what delusion?

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

fair enough... nobody can say you are wrong... it's YOUR opinion, not someone else's.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

I'm sorry - your comment seems a bit ambiguous. Don't you feel that the least among us - working a full time job - or even a couple of part time jobs - to get 40 hours a week pay - should be earning enough to support a good life? Your comment makes your position unclear.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

absolutely... otherwise, what's the point of society.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Though still ambiguous as to what I asked - I will accept that you feel that the least amongst us - working full time (40 hours a week) - should be earning a good life's wage - and that those who strive for more should also be allowed that - but that the least - who can only contribute - just - so much - should not be relegated to live in misery - but perhaps in living a good life may find that they can offer more than they or anyone else thought that they could - and therefore earn more than some might have ever thought possible.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

"The gifted of thought do not prosper - without those who work and make thought a reality." Right on! Society is a complex web of interdependence. Every worker plays a part and every worker is important. Anyone working 40 hours a week should have the highest standard of living there is. What more could they possibly offer to society than their full-time labor?

A skilled surgeon may save a few lives every day, but a farmer saves millions of lives each day by providing the surgeon and others with the food they need to survive. Society could survive without surgeons, but it could not survive without food producers.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

Lets not rag on the surgeons. They really do deserve all they make. The Wall Street goons and the corporate executives are the real problem. They're basically the parasites of society.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

It also helps to save lives in the medical field - if practitioners have instruments as well as medications. Damned few things are solo operations - damned few people can do all that is needed to make a complete process by them self.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

exactly... Sam Walton wouldn't be a billionaire if all of his minimum wage employees didn't run his business for him.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

No comments on that? = I really don't care what the top earnings are - as long as the very least earnings support a good life.

Really?

I just said that you can be just as disgustingly rich as you want ( caveat - as long as the least earner has enough to live a good life) - and that I don't care - pour it on - buy your own country or two or three or more - as long as the least among us earn a good living - and - that includes good health.

No slimeball hiding out that wants to take a shot at me for that?

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

I think you're right on with the thought.

I too don't give a hoot if somebody is richer than me, or what the richest guy makes so long as I have a deal where I can live decently and not get screwed out of what I've already earned.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I get it this is just another pipe dream from an idiot who thinks shit happens by magic no wonder this post looks like a child wrote it.

Congrats Old Don on your big win electing the GOP!

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Who decides what "100%" means? The central economy planning committee?

In your vision, there are government bureaucrats who decide whether a person fits into Category 4 or Category 5? "Sorry, you have a degree but you're in an un-skilled position, therefore -- CATEGORY 4 FOR YOU!!"

[-] 2 points by donOld (134) 3 years ago

I, of all people, am not asking for government bureauRats. I am asking the people here for their own ideas. The example I gave is just to help them understand the question. Obviously it didn't work for you.