Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Maximum Wage

Posted 2 years ago on April 14, 2012, 10:17 a.m. EST by ChristianMI (2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Taxing the wealthy will only help so much. We need to adress the root of the problem which are these absurd pay ratios and compensation/contribution ratios. We forget that money is only paper until all of society puts faith in it. When we allow a person to attain such an outlandish income, it is basicly society saying "you are worth this to us." Now if people understood this concept and were asked what people like Donald Trump or various hedge fund managers were worth to them, no sane human being would weigh any of their contributions to society anywhere close to their compensation. I have another news flash too, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE NOT SAD MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE. The owners and higher management of businesses and corporations (including oil) have openly stated in the media that any tax hikes or cost increases will simply be passed down in the form of laid off workers or higher product prices. These aren't job creators, they're job hostage takers. Their ability to pass the buck down is what must be stopped before any progress can be made. We cannot have a fixed maximum wage as this would come across as opressive. What is needed is the abolishment of the minimum wage and the creation of a maximum wage based on the lowest paid employee under your supervision. That way, when business is good, an executive must raise his employees pay before his own. This will eliminate the 500 to one CEO to worker pay ratio and put money in the hands of people who will actually spend it. Our weakening dollar is caused by inflation which is really caused by the hyper wealthy banking it all because its more than they can spend which is essentially the massive removing of currency from circulation which increases the need for more money to be printed. The Federal Reserve (A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT BANK) prints the money which means every dollar printed now has more debt attached to it than its worth. Thanks for listening.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

Not that is matters when there are no jobs

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Small Business owners do not make that much. My Ex-husband, My father, and friend own a small business. With salaries and bonuses they each take in about $72,000 thousand per year and then they pay taxes of about $5000 on their income. That doesn't include the sales taxes they generate and pay monthly or the taxes that are withheld during the year. The reality is they compete with large chains who are able to order their products at substantial discounts because of volume pricing. You want to do something for small businesses? Eliminate volume pricing. An item is worth what it is worth or you are gouging someone in order to favor someone else.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The problem is an idiotic public.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago


[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago
  1. Hedge Fund managers don't need society's approval for their salaries. They make money for their investors and take a cut out of that. When they fail to make enough money for their clients, they don't get paid. FYI, in case you havent realized it, salaries are not a function of society's approval. They are set by the market.

  2. Tax hikes will inevitably lead to higher prices, thats a given. Even if a handful of top managers decided to take $1 as salary, it would not be enough to offset the tax hike. And besides, managers work for money. Why do u want them to be selfless altruists?

  3. And your explanation of the cause of inflation as 'removal of money out of circulation by the rich' is the most hair brained explanation I have ever read. If anything, the rich invest heavily in a variety of financial instruments thereby putting money in circulation. I implore you to get your basics of economics right.

[-] 4 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Regarding 1., the issue, as far as OWS is concerned is whether or not the way that hedge funds make money for their clients should be legal. If the way that hedge funds make money is found to be damaging to society/the economy, than that approach to making money should be made illegal.

[-] -1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Do you know how hedge funds make money for their clients?

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

According to Wikipedia:

"hedge funds invest in a diverse range of assets, but they most commonly trade liquid securities on public markets. They also employ a wide variety of investment strategies, and make use of techniques such as short selling and leverage."

Jochen Sanio, President of the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, at the "Top Ten Financial Risks to the Global Economy" said:

"The question is not whether hedge funds will cause a disaster; the only question is when."

Gary J. Aguirre, a former investigator with the SEC, who said he was fired for doing his job too well, said of hedge funds:

"in the Darwinian hedge fund world, cheating other market participants has its benefits.... To survive, a hedge fund must learn to siphon. One after another, hedge funds learn the trick." Or, as New York Attorney General's Office investigator David Brown said about an earlier scandal, there is "a whole grotesque industry growing up based on screwing small investors. It's about as bad as it gets."

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

So your knowledge of hedge funds come from wikipedia and some biased comments from agreeably knowledgeable people. But then for every Aguirre or Brown, there are 10 other investors who are happy with the returns from hedge funds and there are 100 other math, econ and MBA grads eager to join a hedge fund.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

When the British East India company, the progenitor of free trade, was selling opium to China, its investors were probably quite happy with the profits they were making. There were probably many graduates eager to get on to the East India Company's payroll as well. Yet, since the sale of such a dangerous drug on a mass scale was immoral, it was eventually deemed illegal and eliminated.

If the work of hedge funds is found similarly to be harmful and immoral, it should also be declared illegal, despite investors who are happy with their profits or graduates who are happy with their jobs.

There are better ways, moral and socially beneficial, for investors to make profits and for graduates to get jobs.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

because something is possible does not make it right or legal,. hedge-funds will be ended as they are nothing more than casino gambling, that disrupts and manipulates market values of commodities we all use.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

Great. Then you will also have to ban trading of stocks. Hedge Funds are just a type of trading. Even you and I, if we have the money and the expertize can do something similar. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Ah, the pot calls the kettle,. do some reading dipsht. http://www.zerohedge.com/

Yes, and eliminate currency too.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

Oh Zerohedge eh. That's for occutards like you to read because it will satiate your love for conspiracies. People who have an iota of a brain dont read that.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Yeah because, the actual day traders who write the posts at zerohedge don't know what they are talking about?

You make zero point, do you have a criticism of an article posted there? Can you make a reasoned argument against any of the posts?? or do you simply dismiss information you are too lazy to read and understand???

Oh, and since you have a negative point rating monetarist (-21) , you will be ignored by me, and anyone paying attention from now on. Until and unless you have an ineligible argument. bye, and good luck.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

A cap on profits looks into the problem a step deeper. A cap would prevent price increase, an adjustment known to compensate for tax increase. A cap creates a rising tide of wealth , instead of a rising geyser !

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 2 years ago

And shortage, black markets, and a real mess. Let the market work. And If I prefer to make a lot of money, why should you intrude and who are you to tell me I can't. Who would decide this magical level? You have a recurring theme of illogical thinking on these forums.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I am glad to see it is bothering you; touching an area without your approval, touching your giant pile of illbegained wealth ! What's wrong ? don't like all the attention your getting.. want the focus to go somewhere else.. somewhere other than GREED ?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 2 years ago

Actually no, What you propose is more humorous than a bother. My "wealth" that you seem to assume is automatically illegally obtained is quite legal, earned through very hard effort and good choices. I have two degrees, obtained by working two jobs and 13 years of night school. There is no greed, just honest labor. Why do you asssume otherwise? Does it bother you that someone can be successful through hard work? I was speaking in a third party sense in my above reply in which I ask why there should be limits and this is your reply? Seems that I may be bothering you instead. You have failed in every response when I have repeatedly asked questions regarding your "theories". You can not prove them, most other replies have refuted them, while I have tried to get clarity from you. Seems like there are no good replies to your illogical posts after all.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 1 year ago

How would a cap on profits affect you ?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Caps would stifle growth, innovation, etc. That affects everyone. While greed produces some bad things, you can not just penalize everyone else for it. How would ever have any agreement on what excess profit would actually be? It's a sliding scale view point, depending on one's economic position.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 1 year ago

So .. a speed limit on a hwy .. you would consider penalizing everyone ? even if it is for the overall safety of everyone on the highway ?

Caps would not stifle manufacturing growth or innovation. In fact it would improve growth and innovation .. why can't you see this ? I have tried to explain this countless times .. the cap does not go on the manufacturer .. what is so hard to understand ? and you did not answer how a cap would directly affect you ? are you a middleman .. than yes .. your profits are limited to a percentage per sale .. but you are not limited as to volume of sales .. so in fact a cap onsales profit would increase your volume of sales .. which an increase in sales volume is the key to the cap improving the overall economy .. if a retailer sells five shirts at one hudred dollars , or ten shirts at fifty dollars he will still make the same profit , but the manufacturer will be busier and thus hire more employees , and the consumer will have an easier life because now the shirt is only fifty and not one hundred .. do you see the benefit to the economy .. verses the negative effect of unfettered greed by the middleman .. I know you are intelligent person.. but your refusal to accept this simple logic ..is becoming quite aggravating.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

After reading the comments on this post I am curious as to how many of those who agree with what ChristianM1 wrote have any business experience?

I doubt seriously that none of you have. Learn ,understand and run a busines before you comment on what the profits of a business should or shouldn't be.

Then, maybe you will have a understanding of how businesses works in this country and then you can make a rational statement regarding the operation of it.

[-] -3 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

The government will never do anything to curb CEO payscales. Its none of their business. It is only the concern of the stockholders of that company.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

We the People of the United States, in Order to promote the general Welfare, establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[-] -1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

That isnt sensible. there is no framework for the government interfering in private transactions, especially in public traded companies.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

We the people have the power to write the constitution, and we the people have the power to amend it as we see necessary.. the whole purpose of the constitution was to promote general welfare. We are fulfilling that purpose.

[-] -1 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

Add civics to your first semester at community college. It'll be a nice complement to that economics class you so disparately need.

[-] -1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

You arent making any sense. I can try and figure out what you are trying to say, if I am wrong, you can correct me. You want CEO salaries trimmed (BTW most CEOS dont take much of a salary, they make most of their money thru options and bonuses for performance) and you want the Federal government to step in and limit CEO salary. Since there is no provision for the Federal government to do that, you believe that we can create a new constitution that will allow us to interfere with private contracts, freely agreed to, if the state finds them "unfair."

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It's bigger than that.

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Can you please be very specific? You arent making sense. Of course that may be your goal.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The constitution is not an after-the-fact approach.

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

I dont mean to be difficult but is English your 2nd language? I can usually understand things easily but either you are being purposefully obtuse or if English is not your native tongue, I see the problem.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I am being cautious.. just in case you turn out to be a troll ? in that case wouldn't want to be polite to you ..or engage in friendly discussion .. so yes I have been obtuse , but you have been arrogant .. so I really don't have any desire to continue a discussion with the likes of you.

[-] -2 points by Delouser (-54) 2 years ago

It is funny reading all these non-stock owning occutards expressing so much concern that the shareholders are overpaying. Savings on executive compensation accrue to shareholders, not to hippies with signs.

[-] 2 points by ChristianMI (2) 2 years ago

My opinions on solutions are only that, opinions. The undeniable fact is that the only people who spend money are the ones that don't have it. No economy can survive this way. No economy, no America.