Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
skill, ability and education. IF they had the ability or skill to own the place they could make that money, they don’t.[/quote]

And then many otehrs would be in the same position they are.

But they shouldn’t care about them, right?[/quote]

That makes no sense. who would be where, if it weren’t for having to fund useless spending on entitlements with taxes there would be much more money to reinvest in employees and benefits.

[/quote]

Yep, its the “entitlement” of teh poor thats the problem.

Not the overpaid politicians, not the overpaid “financial advisors”, not the investors or the property owners or the countless others who benefit from the work of others.

Its those stupid, selfish, “entitled” people who just dont want to spend their entire lives scraping by so they can watch all the people their money goes to live lives of luxury.

How dare they?

402

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?
[/quote]
You’re kind of an idiot.

Do you know the difference between someone who employs and snow shovel to do his or her job and someone who employs a plow truck? Do you see who is more productive and who is not? Do you understand that while one pay might be acceptable for one job it is not acceptable for an other depending on who is being offered the job? What right is it of yours to demand that an employee is paid a “fair” wage that YOU deem “fair”. What if I want more than what you deem fair?

403

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?
[/quote]
You’re kind of an idiot.

Do you know the difference between someone who employs and snow shovel to do his or her job and someone who employs a plow truck? Do you see who is more productive and who is not? Do you understand that while one pay might be acceptable for one job it is not acceptable for an other depending on who is being offered the job? What right is it of yours to demand that an employee is paid a “fair” wage that YOU deem “fair”. What if I want more than what you deem fair?[/quote]

Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.

If the value of shoveling someones drive is 100 dollars, and you shovel the drive, how much should you get? According to you, much less than the person who referred you the job, and the person who rented you the equipment, and the person who loaned the money to your boss so your boss could advertise, and the people who run the government.

Nevermind that without you being out there actually shoveling the snow, they dont make a single dime. You do the work, they should make a comfortable living and you can make just enough to get by, if that.

Now factor in the fact that the system relies on lots and lots of people shoveling snow so people can get rich off the work of snow shovelers, meaning theres a pretty good chance you’ll end up shoveling snow your whole life… or you could go on government assistance.

Perhaps if you made anywhere near as comforable a living doing the work as the people “above” you do, it would be in your best interest to shovel snow. But if you have the chance of work your ass off and be poor, or don’t work and be poor, well, which do you think is smarter?

404

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]

So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?

A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages above what is produced and the markets dissolve.

405

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]

So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?

A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages above what is produced and the markets dissolve.[/quote]

No, the fisherman who catches 10 fish gets paid 2 fish, because the boss takes 2 fish and the government takes a fish and the bank takes 2 fish… well, you get the point.

And eventually the fisherman says fuck this, I’m sick of working hard to catch ten fish a day and only get two, I’ll let the government give me one fish and do nothing.

406

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If I work hard to save up money and start a business of my own, actually just was able to. Then I have the right to run the business as I see fit. Now a others have a right to purchase or not purchase whatever goods or services I provide. And I should be able to pay whatever I deem appropriate for wages to whoever I deem appropriate as and employee.

There my rights are already violated. But you don’t care about that. the government says how much I have to pay and what grounds I can use to hire. If I don’t pay fair wages, people won’t work for me, I will not produce anything and will go out of business. But we don’t let systems work the way they are intended, you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my life or how to run my business.

Bet you wouldn’t like me telling you what to do with your stuff. I don’t care what you do with your stuff, just don’t take mine to do it. [/quote]

Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?

[/quote]

In the final analysis yes, but since somewhat decent employees are hard to find that will take a while in the US.

407

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

You are missing teh point.

Maybe everyone wants to be an investor bust moszt people cant because they suck at it.

Which indicates to me that not only is becoming a skilled investor hard work but there must also be more to it than you concede.

[/quote]

Most people can’t because they don’t have the money to do so in any reasonably beneficial way.

I think the topic you keep bringing up of “foregoing consumption” is interesting. Most people who invest aren’t missing meals or skipping going to the movies because of their investments – even after, they have enough to live comfortable.

Conversely, for workers to “save money”, the effects are much more acutely felt. Its little surprise that most people would rather have small luxuries rather than save a tiny bit which will, maybe, in several decades, add up to something significant.[/quote]

You have a poin there, being rich breeds a certain kind of attitude that in turn can make you even more rich.

Delaying gratification is not only a function of emotional maturity bu also of wealth.

Interestingly enough though, for most people the emotional maturity comes before the money and they get the money because of it.

Most millionaires got rich by living below their means all their lives.

408

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Orion, if the workers in America made anywhere near as much as all the people in the “auxiliary functions” do, there wouldn’t be a problem. But since everybody wants to be in the “auxiliary function”, since thats where all the money is, you get a smaller and smaller workforce being pushed harder and harder and paid less and less (relative to cost of living).

Is that a system that’s going to last?[/quote]

I reject your premise.

While it is true that most people try to get money off others peoples work the usual route is through the government and the “American worker” is as guilty of this as anyone else, just not quite as succesful.

Putting such a framework in place and then complain that other people are better at yopur own game than you believed you would be is somewhere between despicable and amusing.

Also, you are rewarded proportionately to the skills you bring to your job, not proportionately to what other people make.

If people want to maintain a level of consumption that would put every other generation and almost all people today to shame and yet complain that they cannot save money that is a form of whining, no more, no less.

[/quote]

“Putting such a framework in place”? You’re saying the average american worker “put the framework in place”?[/quote]

Yes.

For better or worse they voted for people that promised them more and more stuff that had to be created by others.

Now they are fleeced to pay for bank bailouts, a failing social security system, cheap money that redistributes money from the bottom to the top and so further and so on.

Of course they thought that the New Deal would be all roses and rainbows for them but they are where they are and stay where they are for a reason, they do not understand the world very well.

Be that as it may, they gave government the power to help them by harming others and now they live with the consequences.

This is a democracy now, vox populi, vox dei.

409

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]

So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?

A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages above what is produced and the markets dissolve.[/quote]

No, the fisherman who catches 10 fish gets paid 2 fish, because the boss takes 2 fish and the government takes a fish and the bank takes 2 fish… well, you get the point.

And eventually the fisherman says fuck this, I’m sick of working hard to catch ten fish a day and only get two, I’ll let the government give me one fish and do nothing.[/quote]

No, no you are wrong. He only gives up his other fish if the capital goods he used to catch those fish belonged to someone else. For example, if he did not own the fishing pole. And besides, who is to say what wage is right that is negotiated between the fisherman and fishing pole owner?

And your solution is ludicrous. Why would everyone not work and let the government do the fishing if that were possible?

410

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
skill, ability and education. IF they had the ability or skill to own the place they could make that money, they don’t.[/quote]

And then many otehrs would be in the same position they are.

But they shouldn’t care about them, right?[/quote]

Maybe, but they live in China and India and would love to be in that position.

So if you care about the really, really poor, celebrate it.

411

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]

So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?

A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages above what is produced and the markets dissolve.[/quote]

No, the fisherman who catches 10 fish gets paid 2 fish, because the boss takes 2 fish and the government takes a fish and the bank takes 2 fish… well, you get the point.

And eventually the fisherman says fuck this, I’m sick of working hard to catch ten fish a day and only get two, I’ll let the government give me one fish and do nothing.[/quote]

You seem to forget that the government takes about 5 fish out of ten, in Europe more like 6-7, and the owner gets about 2-3, which he must use to pay the people who build and maintain the boats and the nets and the people who lend him the money to buy his equipment in the first place and then, maybe he gets 1 fish.

Half of that fish is of course again taken by the government.

412

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ryan you’re a babbling little boy. Now go catch your breath and if you love Cuba so much take the next flight to Cuba…LOL CUBA!![/quote]

Nothing to say, huh?

I’m not surprised. Now, are you going to pout much longer?[/quote]

I hear the weather is really nice in…CUBA this time of year. Need a ticket?[/quote]

Yes.

413

[quote]Dijon wrote:
All this has been tried before and it always ends up an oligarchy. It’s completely incompatible with human nature.

What is anyone’s motivation for being part of a society that ultimately needs to quash their freedom? [/quote]

Where has it been tried before? With all due respect, if you actually think something like the Soviet Union was socialist, then you’re not familiar with the views of actual socialists.

Just a tip: don’t rely on rabid right-wingers like ZEB, who won’t even acknowledge that people are having a hard time finding work right now, for information on socialism.

414

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
All this has been tried before and it always ends up an oligarchy. It’s completely incompatible with human nature.

What is anyone’s motivation for being part of a society that ultimately needs to quash their freedom? [/quote]

It has been explained to little Ryan repeatedly. He talks until everyone gets sick of him and by then it’s time for him to go back to school and we don’t usually hear from him again until spring break. When all his contemporary’s are in Florida having fun Ryan is on T Nation talking about Karl Marx. He’s an odd kid for sure, but he’ll mature …in time.[/quote]

Still pouting because you were wrong? Maybe I should buy you a toy to cheer you up?

415

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:Forego consumption? Are you telling me that most people who make considerable profits on investments are foregoing reasonable consumption in order to make those investments?

Yeah, they’d buy an expensive car. Which would pay people, who would in turn buy things, etc, etc, as opposed to one rich person sitting back and getting paid for having money.

I’m expecting that people should make money for doing work that actually creates things rather than shuffling money around and getting rich off of other peoples work.[/quote]

Shhh!!! When orion gives you a standard bullshit Austrian line like that, you’re supposed to just nod your head and stay quiet! Don’t actually think about it, for heaven’s sake!

416

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Move to Cuba Ryan. I hope you enjoy all of your freedom in CUBA - LOL[/quote]

I can’t move to Cuba. Thanks to my American “freedom,” I am legally prohibited from traveling there.

Thanks again for making my points for me.[/quote]

Now that’s bullshit right there and you know it. People go to Cuba all the time. If you honestly believed they were so great, you’d go there…and maybe you’ll survive the trip back on the raft in a couple years.[/quote]

“Contrary to common belief, it is legal to travel to Cuba. It is, however, illegal to travel to Cuba with the intention of spending money or receiving gifts during the visit without a license issued by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Longer than a one day visit is considered proof that money was spent, making unlicensed tourist visits basically a violation of U.S. law.”

http://www.travels.com/destinations/caribbean/us-citizen-instructions-traveling-cuba/

So no, it’s not bullshit. But, I’m glad you shot your mouth off before you knew what you were talking about.

417

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If I work hard to save up money and start a business of my own, actually just was able to. Then I have the right to run the business as I see fit. Now a others have a right to purchase or not purchase whatever goods or services I provide. And I should be able to pay whatever I deem appropriate for wages to whoever I deem appropriate as and employee.

There my rights are already violated. But you don’t care about that. the government says how much I have to pay and what grounds I can use to hire. If I don’t pay fair wages, people won’t work for me, I will not produce anything and will go out of business. But we don’t let systems work the way they are intended, you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my life or how to run my business.

Bet you wouldn’t like me telling you what to do with your stuff. I don’t care what you do with your stuff, just don’t take mine to do it. [/quote]

Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?

[/quote]

and product cost would go down genious

418

[quote]orion wrote:True, we expect governments to protect private property, not take it at gunpoint.

Without that protection however nobody works hard to better his circumstances, what would be the point?

[/quote]

That’s how capitalism started.

419

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]

So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?

A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages

No, the fisherman who catches 10 fish gets paid 2 fish, because the boss takes 2 fish and the government takes a fish and the bank takes 2 fish… well, you get the point.

And eventually the fisherman says fuck this, I’m sick of working hard to catch ten fish a day and only get two, I’ll let the government give me one fish and do nothing.[/quote]

above what is produced and the markets dissolve.[/quote]

Thank you, you just proved why limited government is better.

open mouth insert foot.

420

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:True, we expect governments to protect private property, not take it at gunpoint.

Without that protection however nobody works hard to better his circumstances, what would be the point?

[/quote]

That’s how capitalism started.
[/quote]

Capitalism didn’t start. It is inherent in every human action. In that regard it is timeless.