I can actually argue that instantly going to chopping wages to keep costs down (ie: firing people) is a BAD, if not worst possible avenue for cost savings.
That said it’s industry dependent and not always a bad thing.
1 Like
Of course. Sports and Hollywood millionaires pimp the same indoctrination they do, they don’t mind those people make 35 million a film or 35k+ a pitch.
It’s the evil “CEO” boogieman they go after, for the same reasons they only ever attack white Christians and never Muslims. They are pussies, who can’t provide for themselves so need Big Daddy Government to go out and take from someone else to provide for them…
2 Likes
Oh, I totally agree
1 Like
Right now we are talking about Portland’s Inequality Tax or minimum wage increase in North America. I am not talking about USSR, Cuba or Venezuela. Jumping straight to the example of state totalitarian communism as usual.
If you can’t pay someone a full-time salary that puts them at least right above poverty level then you should cut into your margins until you pay them this salary. If you can’t have a margin in that case, then your business suck and you shouldn’t do it. That means your business relies on exploiting people. There is no reason to not cut out non-performers for a given job, but the job itself has to pay a living for a full time salary. I am not talking about black youth student jobs. It’s also not true that people can just walk away of those places. A lot of factors keep people in their situation.
You are not going to proportionally increase the wage of all your employee. This tax is about reducing the income inequality, so you are not going to bump everyone up. In any case you are not going up to the CEO level since we are talking about taxing the CEO salary. And anyway you look at it, the minority still has the majority of the wealth. Don’t talk to me about those poor margins.
It’s not true that someone has such a special skill that he deserves to be paid 1000x more than someone else. Some people are better than others and deserve more money for their time, but not to the point of having an obscene salary while others can’t live of their. The fact is that in a lot of small places it’s some asshole (I mean asshole for jerk and not low class irrelevant disrespected idiot this time) who would rather keep everything he can while the people he employs are starving. I have seen a limited number of places but a lot of the places I have seen were this way.
Not only it has always been this way but it has gotten worse in the past decades. To become rich I would rather be born 50 to 100 years ago.
Funny thing accountants in this thread say they have the real world experience and knowledge on economic matter (I don’t know how economic theory and the tax code is the same thing but anyway I’ll give it to you), but at the same time will go out of their way to try to debate things they don’t know anything about, weren’t trained in and don’t work in. Like how a vegetarian diet is no better for the environment than a meat diet, while I would be somewhat the equivalent of a CPA for this matter. But hey it’s all leftist propaganda and indoctrination:. Global warming, reducing wage inequality, vegetarian diets for the environment.
Lmao long post you are lucky guys
Not true, I mind those people more. They are making millions of people’s boredom and poor artistic tastes.
-The ones who want to have lower prices and sell more.
-They shouldn’t have that kind of money to begin with when it could be better used be people who need to the most.
I feel you bro.
I don’t know of a single salary that puts people at the minimum wage… As of 12/1/16, the minimum salary is over $47k/year, previously was ~$25k.
Is english your second language?
Just like you don’t buy a product, because it’s overpriced; I would not take a job that under compensates me.
What standard of living are we talking about? You have to adjust your standard of living based on your income. In college, I was homeless; even when I had a full time management position at a retail store.
How does this do this, exactly? Like, stop making catchy phrases; explain how.
Wait, what? No, we are talking about taxing a company, BASED on the CEO’s salary.
So, someone flipping burgers and a CEO who’s decisions can drastically effect the world economy should be paid similarly? Like what, 50 times more? So, 25k/year and 1M/year?
Yes, they do exist. Fortunately, this is a relatively small amount of the population and there are people who donate to them.
Bullshit. The internet has made it infinitely easier for people. There are so many ways to make money via apps. Uber, lyft, Etsy, Ebay, Apps to sell clothes, online marketing, etc, etc.
… ok, it’s infinitely times easier now.
Not an accountant, I started down that path, but didn’t want to sit in an office all day. So, you’re saying you’re an economist? Or, are you inadvertently disqualifying yourself from discussing anything outside of your djembe circle.
So… Walmart?
Yes, how dare someone have a good idea, build a company, steer said company into success and earn a fortune.
1 Like
For some odd reason I doubt that…
1 Like
This is most laugahbly ignorant statement I’ve read in a while.
2 Likes
So exactly what you’re doing here…
Didn’t you graduate from college like a year ago? What do you do now? What are your credentials?
1 Like
100 years ago you’d probably be gearing up to die in WWI or getting ready to try and survive the Great Depression… This fucking place is incredible sometimes.
3 Likes
You mean “Democratic Socialism.” [quote=“jasmincar, post:104, topic:224248”]
If you can’t pay someone a full-time salary that puts them at least right above poverty level then you should cut into your margins until you pay them this salary.
[/quote]
Why?
Exactly. Redistribution props some up and drags others down. But increased productivity and economic output bumps everyone up.
That’s for the market to decide.
Define an obscene salary. A dollar amount.[quote=“jasmincar, post:104, topic:224248”]
To become rich I would rather be born 50 to 100 years ago.
[/quote]
When there was less tax and regulation.
I know I recommend this book a lot, but please read Milton and Rose Friedman “Free to Choose.” It will really help you gain more perspective on this stuff. It was a real eye opener for me.
1 Like
Heres the thing–to do that you need to do 2 things. 1st, define what a living wage is, and 2nd force EVERYONE to pay that. The poverty line is not the same in BFE Kansas as it is in New York, NY–NY has 300% the cost of living.
The ONLY WAY you can force everybody into paying a living wage is to become a totalitarian regime. That’s why these failed atates keep getting brought up–it is literally the only way to ensure every single person in the country gets a livable wage. Define livable, force everyone to pay that, and take control of the economy to force things like supply and demand to bend to your arbitrary will…because if you don’t control the economy, you run into the problem where some jobs aren’t valued as highly as others and don’t require the same amount of skills, and therefore will not be paid the same OR will be automated putting those people completely out of work
Oh, and then you have to take control of healthcare because the government has to keep costs under control in order to ensure they can force everyone to have a livable wage.
Oops…Soviet Russia and Venezuela all over again.
2 Likes
11$ per hour * 40 hour * 50 weeks= 22 000$
Well it is, for some reason I always bug on the third tense (your business sucks). The rest seems ok.
No one would, but do you have the choice?
A full time management position or any full time position should at least pay for basic needs (shelter, food, clothes). Otherwise the sacred margins of the people who happen to make them with your work should be taken. If there is no margin left then there is no position left.
It would be a advantageous for a company to pay less the CEO. If the CEO is still paid more than the amount, the taxes can go to public workers, services or tax deductions for the middle class or whatever it is. That’s some kind of redistribution.
Doesn’t make a difference in the end.
That seems good.
Yep earn 1 million a year seems enough.
Yes, Walmart would be selling the products made by the company that didn’t artificially increase its price to meet the new ability to pay of the working class.
No way in hell would I. The poor are way better off in today’s world than 100 years ago, and have a higher chance of getting out of poverty here. The bottom line is higher.
4 Likes
Clearly it worked for them…
3 Likes
To become filthy rich from nothing I would rather be born in the USA let’s say in 1870 or 1930. To be less poor in a third-world country I would rather be born now than 100 years ago, but I am not sure.
Notions like this is how you get a generation of people who’ve gone into considerable debt to study subjects that yield no marketable skills. Notions like this is how you get people who feel like the work they put into acquiring these limited-use skills DESERVES, well, whatever it is they FEEL it deserves.
Solution? Vote for men with guns to take it away from someone else!
7 Likes