OpinionA maximum wage would be a good idea
      – Thelevellers, 2010-02-11 at 18:05:47   (93 comments)

On 2010-02-11 at 18:10:16, Thelevellers wrote...
This idea comes from Mark Thomas's 'The People's Manifesto', in that the suggestion says that you would cap the maximum in relation to the average wage (suggested relationship - highest wage = 10x the average, in the UK that would mean £250,000 max, based on the national average of £25,000), either nationally or per company. This would mean that if the top brass want a pay rise, they have to give the lowest earners in the company a rise too. At first glance it looks like 'goodbye wealth gap' to me. Indeed, I believe there is research that suggests that it is the gap between rich and poor that creates the biggest problems, not how poor people are. Hence being poor in the US or the UK is far worse than being poor in a third world country. Possibly.
On 2010-02-12 at 05:28:17, BorgClown wrote...
What about share holders or business owners (as opposed to employees)?
On 2010-02-12 at 11:36:38, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I'd like to agree, but its questionably as to whether taking money away from the rich would stop them from investing in expensive products and technologies. After all, if something is guaranteed to cost several million pounds to develop then only a rich philanthropist is going afford it. If it's something that the rest of us can benefit from, then so much the better. Certainly it would be better for everyone who isn't rich already! And it would be a huge benefit to society generally, assuming that there's enough wealth to spread around. There are ways to circumvent the system too. I'd question whether the idea should be applied to the whole country rather than individual companies. If you're capped countrywide then there's little incentive to pay employees more, although I suppose the excess money has to go somewhere. Maybe you'd have more employees on the same pay so get work done more (or less) efficiently?
On 2010-02-12 at 13:25:20, Thelevellers wrote...
Some one did bring up the problem of making rich people less rich from a similar angle: How does expensive technology become cheap, without the rich people to buy it when it is expensive - like mobiles phones or DVDs, for example. The shareholder consideration I hadn't thought about yet. Potentially that's where you could get the rich people :P But no, that would just mean everyone would get shares to increase their wages... This needs more thought, methinks :)
On 2010-02-13 at 15:30:09, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Realistically anyone who's earns a ¼ million a year is going to be able to afford everything they need, just not invest millions quite so easily - and if everyone else gets a higher standard of living so much the better (more local spending, more money in the pockets of small retailers). It's wrong of me to suggest that potential investments would suffer though - that's like saying that potential children ought to be protected, even though you have no way of knowing how successful anything will be in the future. There's only one world so only one outcome, but certainly one or two countries could adapt a maximum wage and the rest could see the result.
On 2010-02-13 at 18:23:03, Thelevellers wrote...
I was discussing this with a friend and he seemed completely adamant that people will always want more money, and certain jobs no-one would do if the pay increase from the lower level wasn't high enough - who wants to take on the responsibility of a huge corporate conglomerate if the increase from your current job is negligible? I think his point was that the spread of wages wouldn't be very good if restricted, though he also pointed out the same old 'there's no motivation without lots of money', and put an argument I hadn't thought of before to my instant 'bin men don't need vast fortunes to motivate themselves to do a shitty job' response: Bin men are likely too lazy/uneducated to get better paid jobs (and are lazy), so they are stuck with the job, and the motivation comes from needing the job itself. I don't like the argument, but he might have a point :S
On 2010-02-14 at 18:48:36, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I disagree with your friend - if someone wanted to pay me your example of £250,000 to look after a huge corporation then I'd at least give it a go, qualifications or no. Such a job may well require the right personality and skills, but there are only so many hours in a week and if you're willing to put the effort in then you don't have to be like the sort of people who currently run such organisations. I really have no idea why refuse collectors take on that job - I've thought about it and I guess I just don't know how much it gets paid, but presume it's because they don't feel confident enough to apply for anything else. There are genuinely people for whom advancement through education isn't an option.
On 2010-02-14 at 21:16:27, Thelevellers wrote...
I think I would agree with you, Lee - £250,000 is surely enough?! You could buy a (cheap) house AND feed yourself each year!
On 2010-02-15 at 01:31:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
Sounds like communism to me. I know, how about letting people earn what they are worth in the marketplace? What a novel idea.
On 2010-02-15 at 10:41:04, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: It may turn out that you're not worth much at all - not even enough to live on.
On 2010-02-15 at 15:10:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
I have been there. What I did was I went out and made myself worth more. Been there and done that. What else you got?
On 2010-02-15 at 16:22:42, Thelevellers wrote...
Is ANYONE worth more than 250k? Or more than a million a year? Seriously? The market is run by the people at the top, so they are obviously going to believe they are worth more than they are... And I have no problem with it sounding like communism - if it weren't for human nature communism sounds worth a try to me...
On 2010-02-22 at 01:53:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
If I can improve your bottom line revenues by 10 million per year, yes, I would say that I would be worth 1 million per year to your company. Communism is shit.
On 2010-02-22 at 11:16:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Except if someone else can do the same job for less money, then you're overvaluing yourself.
On 2010-02-22 at 13:14:34, DigitalBoss wrote...
In that case, yes, the market will dictate what the going rate is by supply and demand. My brother is an ASIC contract engineer currently working at Intel. His pay is high (compared to mine), but it changes often according to how many ASIC engineers are available and the number of current projects requiring their expertise. The government should stay out of it; let the market decide.
On 2010-02-22 at 15:58:51, DigitalBoss wrote...
A maximum wage would be a bad idea for the same reason a minimum wage is a bad idea. The government has no business telling me how much or how little I pay my employees. Your idea is elitist. You think you know more about what my employees are worth to me than I do.
On 2010-02-22 at 17:57:36, Lee J Haywood wrote...
A minimum wage is typically very difficult to live on. People who aren't paid enough are likely to have health problems, commit crimes or simply remain unemployed. A maximum wage is unlikely to be so detrimental to society.
On 2010-02-22 at 19:51:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
There is no such a thing as a society. Other than family and or friends you live in a marketplace, not a society. A society is an elitist excuse to ignore individual rights and basic market forces. I guess you can tell, I don't like the society word either.
On 2010-02-22 at 21:07:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Our society is simply the people who live in the same country and follow the same basic rules in order to get along with each other. That certainly exists, and you'd struggle to find a country where it doesn't.
On 2010-02-23 at 09:08:15, Thelevellers wrote...
I can assure you, a minimum wage is a good idea - I have spent enough of my life living off exactly that, and am balls deep in debt and highly stressed because of it. I am not uneducated, and am in fact doing well compared to a lot of people - hell I have a job at least at the moment! However, this job isn't required to pay me the minimum wage (it's an apprenticeship, so I am paid the minimum for a 16 year old), and as such I can't really afford to live this year - I am surviving merely because debt isn't so bad as in a year or two I get significant pay rises. Also, I know that I am lucky enough to have family with money to help me out if I really need it. Probably the majority of people can;t rely on that kind of thing, and for them the minimum wage doesn't cover living costs, but are, for whatever reasons (not always their fault - especially now the job market is screwed) stuck on that minimum wage. The government set minimum wage is all that stops these people starving and losing their homes/families.
On 2010-02-23 at 13:53:00, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Yeah, it is always good for the sap for which the basic market forces are being ignored. What about the guy that pays you? It is a violation of his rights for the government to force him to pay you more than your worth in the labour market.
On 2010-02-23 at 13:56:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: It does not exist. It is an excuse. "Oh, for the good of society, we will institute a minimum wage law." " Oh, for the good of society, we will institute a maximum wage law." Central government elitist communism. It is nothing but an elitist excuse to ignore individual rights and basic market forces. Society is an elitist concept, always has been, always will be.
On 2010-02-23 at 14:25:47, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I can assure you I was worth more than the minimum wage at all my work places, but would never be paid more without taking on more responsibility - I was about the only person to actually put any effort in at all in my last two jobs (ok, scratch that, last two supermarket jobs - there was a factory in between where there were to few employees for anyone to slack off). The minimum wage ensured I was at least paid a bare minimum to survive. If humanity in general was nicer, then you wouldn't need it, as managers would realise that their employees need to live to add value, but when comparing life before the minimum wage and after. I can can't see that there has been any negatives, except for those working at the level having slightly better lives. Oh wait, no, that's a good thing for society!
On 2010-02-23 at 16:42:06, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I've noticed a huge difference between living with my family and living alone in my own house. Even without a mortgage my bills mean that I cannot live on less than about £15,000 without losing money from my savings (after tax, etc.) So even the minimum wage wouldn't be enough, unless I took drastic measures to change my living arrangements. Looking for work that will give me enough to live on is difficult in spite of my skills.
On 2010-02-23 at 21:40:49, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Market forces aren't all they're cracked to be. Slavery, for example, was part of the market, only slaves were commodities rather than participants. Unleashed market forces could lead to our own extinction, too much risk.
On 2010-02-24 at 12:14:31, DigitalBoss wrote...
I got news for you Borg, we have abolished slavery, at least in the US, around 150 years ago. Can we get a better argument from you than "slaaaaveeery" [said in a nasal nanny-like voice]? Is that the only argument you have in defense of a maximum wage? I know you would love a maximum wage, seeing as you are so full of wealth envy.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:07:43, Thelevellers wrote...
But weren't those who abolished slavery just the kind of 'pinko-commie-liberal-scum' that you whine about now? I don't recall hearing about the businesses that relied on the slave trade being hugely vocal in getting rid of it? And that's the point I believe Borg was making - it wasn't the markets that abolished slave trading.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:22:41, DigitalBoss wrote...
The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, was the one to take up what the founding fathers could not bring themselves to do, abolish slavery. The founding fathers knew that it needed to be done, they just did not have the political will at the time. Some say that the famous "All men are created equal" phrase in the Declaration of Independence, which was a big rallying cry for abolition, was put in there just for that purpose. I am a big believer in individual rights for all. The individual is the smallest minority. It is all about minority rights. That is exactly why "Democracy" is such a threat. Democracy is all about the wishes of the majority, even if it treads on the rights of the minority.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:27:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
Take for example your dear minimum wage. The majority got together and voted for a minimum wage on the pretense that it is good for "society", and completely disregarded the right of the individual business owner to pay his employees by the going market rate. It is no business of the government to tell me how much I pay my employees.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:28:49, DigitalBoss wrote...
Democracy=Bad, Democrat=Bad. It was Democrats that were so against abolition. They were also against the civil rights bill of the 1960s. Look at the vote count on the passage of the bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 There were far more Democrats voting against the bill than Republicans. The Democrats are not for individual rights, they are for increasing the size and power of the government to give them more power, even at the expense of claiming to be "looking out" for the little guy.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:45:32, Thelevellers wrote...
My issue was that businesses cannot be relied upon to make changes like the abolition of slavery. You've completely ignored that aspect...
On 2010-02-24 at 13:49:19, Thelevellers wrote...
I do have to point out that there were also more democrats voting. Obviously that doesn't really matter, as the percentage difference is still reasonable, but the percentage difference in the senate shows that far more senate Republicans voted against... Not the slam dunk you seemed to be making out, IMO.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:51:24, Thelevellers wrote...
Also, for me, the rights of the majority of individuals > the rights of the individual businesses. (Yes, I am ignoring the rights of the business owner, but as the owner of a business and employer of others, they have a responsibility greater than that of most people).
On 2010-02-24 at 14:23:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: There is no slavery, so that issue is moot. Its amazing how the jackasses revert to the slavery word when cornered. What does slavery have to do with anything? It has been abolished here for almost 150 years, and it was a Republican that did it. Each one of those individuals for which you claim to be speaking, may one day be a business owner also, then the shoe would be on the other foot. The main concern, or responsibility, of the business owner, is the health of the business. For it not for the business, there would be no employees. Who knows best for the health of the business? The owner, of course. The elitist politicians think that they know more of what is better for the business, but they do not.
On 2010-02-24 at 16:17:53, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: What if your "majority of individuals" decided that all citizens at the age of 18 to the age of 30 years should be forced to work for no more than $1.00 per hour? Who knows, the popular wind may blow that way one day. That would trample all over your rights as an individual for no reason other than the fact that the majority wanted it that way.
On 2010-02-24 at 16:19:40, DigitalBoss wrote...
Democracy, which is the whims of the masses, can be very dangerous to the individual.
On 2010-02-24 at 18:13:09, Thelevellers wrote...
I disagree with a basic assumption you have made: The main concern of the business owner is not necessarily the business in my view. But as you obviously disagree with that view, there's not really any point in me discussing it further.
On 2010-02-24 at 18:23:21, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: That is not an assumption, it is fact.
On 2010-02-24 at 20:50:00, Thelevellers wrote...
No, it's not, that is your opinion, my opinion is that they have other more important concerns.
On 2010-02-25 at 03:09:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Such as being your full-time nanny? Grow up son, you are full of baby shit.
On 2010-02-25 at 05:11:55, BorgClown wrote...
Businesses can't be trusted, they are inherently predatory. The less power a country has over corporations, the stronger the corporations control the country. Corporations have legal personhood, but they are not your average citizen, they can become more powerful than most small countries. Corporations exist to to seek increasing returns for a small group, which in turn passes those demands onto a bigger but lesser paid group. The demand chain goes down to your average employee masses who see the least return yet are expected to fulfill and drive the money upwards. The average employee can't afford rebel without risking unemployment, not specially when we have these periodical recessions. My point is, the relation between corporations and employees is extremely asymmetrical. Your oompas for freeing the market are bull, corporations won't regulate themselves, they need to be regulated or they will make the relation even more one-sided. Raw capitalism is perfect for small businesses, but not for big ones.
On 2010-02-25 at 09:10:15, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: No, such as being the surrounding environment's caretaker, rather than destructor. Such as HELPING the local community, rather than cynically taking advantage of it.
On 2010-02-25 at 12:09:00, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: The corporations also provide goods, services, create wealth, and create employment. They do far more good than bad. There are a few bad incidences involving corporations just like there are criminals in the state, but for the most part corporations do far more good than bad. They are easily demagogued by those that suffer from wealth envy.
On 2010-02-25 at 16:07:07, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: I can't think of a single corporation near me that does not help the local community. Enlighten me, how does a corporation take advantage of you?
On 2010-02-25 at 18:44:59, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202427898741&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
On 2010-02-25 at 19:20:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: I don't see any problem with what those companies did. What is the difference from a policy on a spouse? If anything they committed a fraud against the insurance company, not the employee. The article goes on to say that the policies are legal. My wife took out an insurance policy on me, because she had a vested interest if I died. Same with those employers. I hope you can do better than that. Did you even read the article? You still did not answer the question. How does a corporation take advantage of you?
On 2010-02-26 at 03:23:56, BorgClown wrote...
When a corporation helps a community, it's because it's getting more off it than it's giving back, it can't do otherwise and keep being a business. Aren't most people more passionate and happy with their hobbies than with their work, even if their hobbies would be work for someone else? Many people in the world can't have a hobby because their jobs, most of them indirectly related to a global corporation, pays them as less as possible so they need to work all the time to survive. Get out of the provincial mindset and realize that corporations make our lives better by making other's lives worse. Just because those others live overseas doesn't negate that ugly side of progress as we understand it today.
On 2010-02-26 at 11:54:13, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Corporations help communities by their very existence. They provide goods and services at an ever increasing efficiency, they provide jobs, and increase the general wealth of the community, not to mention any other outreach or charity work that many support. To broadly cast all corporations as bad is the act of a fool.
On 2010-02-26 at 12:17:49, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: I believe I would rather have a job that allows me to own a home and put food on the table before I would have a hobby. I am lucky, my job is my also my hobby, or should it be the other way, my hobby is also my job. Who are the ones that lives are made worse? I asked the level guy, he could not answer. Of whom is it that you say the corporations are taking advantage?
On 2010-02-26 at 12:18:53, DigitalBoss wrote...
Of whom is it that you say the corporations are taking advantage? Everyone gripes about corporations, but no one can point out the people that are hurt by them.
On 2010-02-26 at 18:30:55, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Try all the Chinese, Indian and other nationalities who work on cents per day making the vast majority of the goods we consume?
On 2010-02-27 at 20:18:04, Lee J Haywood wrote...
There's plenty of slavery in the US today - it's just been renamed as human trafficking.
On 2010-02-28 at 04:57:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: I am sure that anyone working in a factory in China could quit if they wanted. Oh, that's right, it is a centrally controlled Communist government. They are probably doing much better with their job than they would be without. Would you rather they sit at home hungry all day?
On 2010-02-28 at 04:57:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: If it is here, I have never seen it or heard of it. Could you be more specific?
On 2010-02-28 at 12:14:37, Thelevellers wrote...
Oh sure they could quit, and they and their families can starve. Note there are far more countries where it happens than just China - and most (all?) aren't communist dictatorships. (incidentally, I don't support China's brand of communism/socialism - in fact I don't believe true communism can ever work as humans are rubbish and too power hungry).
On 2010-02-28 at 12:15:46, Thelevellers wrote...
I believe Lee is referring to things such as the 'white slave trade', where (largely) eastern European women are shipped over to the US (and UK) and forced to work as prostitutes. Sounds like slavery in the modern world to me?
On 2010-02-28 at 18:40:13, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Human trafficking is prevalent in the UK as well. It is mostly prostitution, but there's some forced labour and there are sweat shops as well. Obviously it's all illegal and you don't get to hear much about it, but with illegal immigration it's almost inevitable - the victims are promised a better life and then sold into a life of slavery and abuse when they get here.
On 2010-02-28 at 21:08:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
Ok, the level guy has mentioned that Chinese that quit working at their corporation may starve, but I think that if I quit working, I would probably starve too. I thought that nobody starved in a Communist utopia. Don't see any value added to the conversation from that comment. And then Lee mentions prostitution slave trade that I doubt even exists, but still could not add up to much about nothing, especially to do with corporations, but maybe organized crime. I still have not heard anything of substance from any of you to backup the claim of evil corporations. Typical meaningless liberal communist demagoguery and drivel. I expect more from elitist bullshitters as you.
On 2010-02-28 at 21:15:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
Of whom is it that you say the corporations are taking advantage?
On 2010-03-01 at 15:21:04, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: No, China is NOT a communist utopia, I pointed that out in my post... China, as all attempts at communism so far, is FAILED communism. human nature makes real communism impossible, at least on a large scale.
On 2010-03-01 at 16:08:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
OMG! Communism that is not utopia? Say it is not so.
On 2010-03-01 at 16:08:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
Of whom is it that you say the corporations are taking advantage?
On 2010-03-01 at 18:00:54, Thelevellers wrote...
I said that CHINESE, and indeed and large form of, communism is not a utopia. The basic idea I love, sadly human nature gets in the way.
On 2010-03-01 at 18:04:23, Thelevellers wrote...
Their workers (see link to the cynical use of life insurance to make money out of employees deaths I linked below). The government (lobby groups have far more influence over government descisions than is right). Their customers (supermarkets over here have been slyly increasing prices by raising them by a lot [say, 10p] then advertising a 'price reduction!', missing the fact that the reduction is only 1p.
On 2010-03-02 at 02:18:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: There is nothing wrong with your employer taking out a policy on you. Lobby groups have just as much a right to petition the government as you do. I would say that a corporation has much more at stake in how the country is run than you do. Some of them have thousands of employees, stockholders, and millions of dollars of capital investments. There will always be advertising and marketing tricks. Have you ever heard of the old saying "Buyer beware"? If you don't like what they are doing, shop elsewhere. Vote with your feet.
On 2010-03-02 at 02:21:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
If Communism is not a utopia, to what are you progressing?
On 2010-03-02 at 02:22:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: What does human trafficking have to do with corporations?
On 2010-03-03 at 01:08:02, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I may return with more, but for now I just want to say this - I have been employed by many companies, and I would never say that their views represent mine, so the fact that lobby groups represent companies who employ thousands doesn;t seem entirely relevant. Then again I just got back from a gig by one of the most cynical people I know, so maybe I'm missing something obvious...
On 2010-03-03 at 01:10:53, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: "If Communism is not a utopia, to what are you progressing?" - What I said was that CHINESE communism isn't a Utopia. Communism itself, if done correctly, while impossible in my view, is a utopia, or at least better than the status quo.
On 2010-03-03 at 04:10:44, BorgClown wrote...
Relevant news item. Apple enforces a code of conduct for its providers, because part of our shiny stuff is probably made cheaply by kid's labor. When corporations grow big, they can have this deplorable influence because profit is everything. It's good to see a big corporation go against this tendency, I hope it means it. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/02/28/1249219/Apple-Enforces-Supplier-Code-of-Conduct-After-Child-Labor-Discovery
On 2010-03-03 at 04:14:19, BorgClown wrote...
I repeat: Corporations make production more efficient, but they tend to corrupt if left unchecked. Only small businesses can autoregulate themselves.
On 2010-03-03 at 14:12:46, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Corporations also provide many people with jobs. Jobs that they use to feed and support their families. I think too many of you leftists have been reading too many comic books, or watching too many films, where corporations are the same old tired bad guys. Do you believe that Pandora really exists? And that James Cammeron is a genius for using the same old tired evil corporation as the antagonist in his latest bash the corporation film? Wake up. There is a real world out there. Wake up from your liberal commie funk.
On 2010-03-03 at 15:04:59, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I nearly had to ask what Pandora (as in box) had to do with anything, and who the hell is James Cameron, then the two fitted together and I realised you must be referencing a film I've not seen but have heard far too much about. I just remembered another case of corporate misbehavior: Coca-Cola (I believe, if not them, then another multi-national drink manufacturer) tapping water sources in India and drying up the local well and polluting the local rivers, making life for the local people incredibly hard/impossible. I realise corporations give people jobs (indeed that include me at the moment, a multi-national, no less), but that doesn't mean they get to act like petulant bullies - you can provide jobs AND be nice.
On 2010-03-03 at 15:06:02, Thelevellers wrote...
This is where the never ending pursuit of maximum profit is so crap - if shareholders weren't always pushing for the maximum profit while hanging the cost to society/climate/ecosystems then corporations wouldn't be pushed into situations where they would even CONSIDER some of crap they pull. I'm not even saying that there should be ZERO profit, but that there should be a requirement to balance the profits made against some basic human decency. The world would be a far better place if that were so.
On 2010-03-03 at 16:29:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: You forget, the competition with other corporations keeps the drive for maximum profit in check. The drive is for maximum efficiency, which is good for all of us.
On 2010-03-03 at 16:32:30, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: I am sure that the problem that you mention with Coca-Cola in India has been remedied. Corporations make mistakes just like anyone else, and when problems arise, they are usually repaired. They are not the evil empires in which you make them out to be. I am a stockholder, and I would rather have higher profits than lower, but most of the time competition keeps profits down.
On 2010-03-03 at 18:31:58, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: If it was remedied, it was only because it was brought to the attention of the world-wide media, if left to their own devices corporations don't tend to fix such issues... The drive for maximum efficiency is just as bad as the drive for maximum profit if it leads to the destruction of vast swathes of irreplaceable rainforests, water supplies, etc.
On 2010-03-03 at 19:57:00, Thelevellers wrote...
I found this mildly interesting, but the relevant bit is at about 15/16 minutes through - He points out that a survey of Americans showed that for all those living on under $60,000 there was a marked drop in happiness as the money gets less, but over $60,000 there is a flat line of happiness. That suggests to me that there is no need to earn more than 60,000 to be happy, so a maximum wage is fine :P (yes, I know that is ignoring all the other factors)
On 2010-03-04 at 14:18:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: There may be no need for YOU to earn more than $60K. Speak for yourself. Limit yourself. See, that is the problem I have with you liberal nanny-state elitists; you think that you know more about what is best for me than I do. I sir, will not limit myself. Never. Besides that, there would be no evil rich for you to gripe about or unfairly tax. Your whole model will collapse on itself.
On 2010-03-04 at 20:26:47, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The problem we have, DigitalBoss, is that humanity as a whole doesn't limit itself. Pretty much all of the profits made by all companies are derived from the planet's resources. Although many are renewable, e.g. food, we still manage to over-exploit them. Even if you work as a computer programmer, you still consume vast amounts of resources that you're not even aware of. Since wartime we've been focused heavily on growth as a measure of success, initially as a way to recover from losses. This trend for upward growth is unsustainable in the long term, as evidenced by global recession. We fight hard to get out of a recession and back to 'healthy' growth yet in doing so we stick to a plan which destroys the very resources that fuel that growth. We know from other countries that money and happiness are not the same thing, and it's possible to both be sustainable and happy without having to be rich or aim for capitalist 'success'. It's not that you don't deserve money, just that it's not the answer to everything.
On 2010-03-05 at 13:20:00, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: If there's no super rich to gripe about I would be happy! Please bring on that world, I'd love to have less to complain about - I could complain even more about the few things left :P
On 2010-03-05 at 14:21:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: But who would you envy? Who would bear the tax burden of your nanny-state?
On 2010-03-05 at 14:23:34, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: There goes your elitist bullshit again. You think you know best for everyone. Speak and do for yourself. Let me do as I wish. I don't think you can honestly use the current global recession as evidence for your weak theory.
On 2010-03-05 at 14:27:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: "This trend for upward growth is unsustainable in the long term". Can you prove this? How can you know about future technology advances? Your claims amount to yelling that the sky is falling. That is your opinion of the problem. I say the problem is too much government and too many elitists. Let the market decide.
On 2010-03-07 at 19:50:13, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It depends on what you look at. For many things everything is fine, for some things are deteriorating and for others we've already gone too far. For example, we're okay with fresh water use for now but will struggle in the future. The nitrogen cycle, however, has been completely screwed up. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2749/27491201.jpg http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527491.200-from-ocean-to-ozone-earths-nine-lifesupport-systems.html
On 2010-03-07 at 20:50:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
"The boundaries, Rockström stresses, are "rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps"." -- taken from your pitiful link. You guys would be better served to read your shit before you post links to it.
On 2010-03-07 at 21:32:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: "If there's no super rich to gripe about I would be happy!." But who would pay for your nanny-state? Who would pay for all the entitlements?
On 2010-03-07 at 21:54:02, Thelevellers wrote...
In an ideal world, no-one would be dodging the taxes, so a fair rate could be imposed. Also, the theory is that by reducing the gap between rich and poor, the easier it is to pull people up off the very bottom rung of the earning ladder, and so reduce the requirement for a lot of the benefits, and thus reduce some of the taxes required. Just for starters...
On 2010-03-08 at 20:50:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Do you think those people will actually work for a living? Do you think that just because you get rid of rich people that the moochers will go away? Someone will have to pay the entitlement programs. Your ideal world does not exist my friend.
On 2010-03-08 at 21:32:47, Lee J Haywood wrote...
You're a fool if you think it's better to have no estimate at all than a rough guess, and the fact that some are rough estimates doesn't detract from the fact that some figures are perfectly valid. As usual you'd like to live in a fantasy world where everything is 'proven' and certain rather than the real world where some things are simply difficult to measure.
On 2010-03-09 at 11:21:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: What?
On 2010-03-10 at 19:55:34, Lee J Haywood wrote...
#90 is a response to #86, obviously.
On 2010-03-11 at 03:32:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
Pardon me, please.