Current Events > Enough about minimum wage. Should the law have a MAXIMUM wage?

(+) Yeah! (+)

For example,

It's illegal to pay a janitor more than 5 dollars an hour. 7 dollars an hour for a waitress. 6 for a cashier.

Something like that.

It would give an incentive for people to strive to improve themselves to get better jobs.

I personally think it's a horrible idea. But I'm wondering if some people might support it.
---

---

No one has or would propose max wages for low skill labor. What a dumb topic.
---

I was expecting this to be about a maximum wage for CEOs or something, which sounds like a decent idea
---

Many places do have a max wage. If you earn tips in some establishments, your base pay can't be more than $6 per hour.
---

TeaMilk posted...

I was expecting this to be about a maximum wage for CEOs or something, which sounds like a decent idea

There is literally no reason to ever have this.

Think about the implications for just a little bit.
Really, give it a good think.

I'd be down with a ceiling and anything over must be redirected into the community. Course I'm talking millions.
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

I'd be down with a ceiling and anything over must be redirected into the community. Course I'm talking millions.

You didn't think about it long enough.
Keep going.

TeaMilk posted...

I was expecting this to be about a maximum wage for CEOs or something, which sounds like a decent idea

"Sorry, even though you literally own this company, we can't let you make this much money"
---

Didn't some city or country recently pass (or try to pass) a law limiting the highest salary of companies to a percentage of the lowest salary? I thought it faced massive backlash.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Didn't some city or country recently pass (or try to pass) a law limiting the highest salary of companies to a percentage of the lowest salary? I thought it faced massive backlash.

France, IIRC.
---

Anyway, no, that's a stupid idea.

Do it with low-wage jobs, and while it probably won't cause harm as such, it's just kinda pointless. If an employer actually wants to pay higher wages - be it because they've got some ninja-speed janitor who deserves it, or because the worker's been with them a long time, or even just because they feel like it'd be a nice thing to do; that's their choice.

Do it with high-wage jobs, and watch as those companies (and their contribution to the economy) relocate to another state / country, taking hundreds of jobs with them - the exact opposite of the desired effect.
---

DarkTransient posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Didn't some city or country recently pass (or try to pass) a law limiting the highest salary of companies to a percentage of the lowest salary? I thought it faced massive backlash.

France, IIRC.

Looking to France as an example for tax policy is not a good idea.

Questionmarktarius posted...

DarkTransient posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Didn't some city or country recently pass (or try to pass) a law limiting the highest salary of companies to a percentage of the lowest salary? I thought it faced massive backlash.

France, IIRC.

Looking to France as an example for tax policy is not a good idea.

Literally the only thing I'm stating there is "France are, if I remember correctly, the ones who did that".
---

DarkTransient posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

DarkTransient posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Didn't some city or country recently pass (or try to pass) a law limiting the highest salary of companies to a percentage of the lowest salary? I thought it faced massive backlash.

France, IIRC.

Looking to France as an example for tax policy is not a good idea.

Literally the only thing I'm stating there is "France are, if I remember correctly, the ones who did that".

Still, though.

DarkTransient posted...

Do it with low-wage jobs, and while it probably won't cause harm as such, it's just kinda pointless. If an employer actually wants to pay higher wages - be it because they've got some ninja-speed janitor who deserves it, or because the worker's been with them a long time, or even just because they feel like it'd be a nice thing to do; that's their choice.

Do it with high-wage jobs, and watch as those companies (and their contribution to the economy) relocate to another state / country, taking hundreds of jobs with them - the exact opposite of the desired effect.

The latter would also apply to the former situation.

Coffeebeanz posted...

TeaMilk posted...

I was expecting this to be about a maximum wage for CEOs or something, which sounds like a decent idea

"Sorry, even though you literally own this company, we can't let you make this much money"

that seems like a pretty good way of doing it tbh. limit income, including capital gains, to a maximum of 300k per year or something. great way of increasing tax revenue too.
---

averagejoel posted...

great way of increasing tax revenue too.

pfft. no.

TeaMilk posted...

I was expecting this to be about a maximum wage for CEOs or something, which sounds like a decent idea

Sounds like a pinko commie idea

Peter_Giffyndor posted...

TeaMilk posted...

I was expecting this to be about a maximum wage for CEOs or something, which sounds like a decent idea

Sounds like a pinko commie idea

it isn't
---

No
---

no offense but that sounds like some fucking commie gobbily gouk
---

TeaMilk posted...

I was expecting this to be about a maximum wage for CEOs or something, which sounds like a decent idea

---

Haha fuck yeah brother, share the poverty. Hail Stalin!

Solid Snake07 posted...

no offense but that sounds like some fucking commie gobbily gouk

*gobbledygook
---

All forms of maximum wage are terrible. People who think it would be a good idea because of rich CEOs don't even grasp that their compensation isn't even a wage to begin with. In a world of stock-based compensation, a maximum wage is nonsensical.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

All forms of maximum wage are terrible. People who think it would be a good idea because of rich CEOs don't even grasp that their compensation isn't even a wage to begin with. In a world of stock-based compensation, a maximum wage is nonsensical.

the obvious solution is to limit stock-based compensation. or better yet, do away with it entirely
---

Or how about not allowing "Stock-Based" compensation, CASH ONLY!
---

Yes, the obvious answer, especially considering how many jobs will be lost in the coming years to automation, is to redistribute the wealth in some way unless people are fine with making a bunch of people poor, and further decreasing the individual's chance of hitting it big and becoming a millionaire. Seems like everyone loses out that way. Why not redistribute wealth and still preserve the dream to make tens of millions of dollars during your lifetime. Isn't that enough incentive?

averagejoel posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

All forms of maximum wage are terrible. People who think it would be a good idea because of rich CEOs don't even grasp that their compensation isn't even a wage to begin with. In a world of stock-based compensation, a maximum wage is nonsensical.

the obvious solution is to limit stock-based compensation. or better yet, do away with it entirely

This is nonsensical. Stock-based compensation is also how workers can get a share in their companies. And if you're going to limit it, what share price do you use? Especially if it's a private company and not publicly traded. How are you going to value the company? You need to value it to determine how much is too much. Another thing is that the price of a stock can change radically. Say you were an early employee of Microsoft and got some stock worth a few thousand as a part of your compensation. That could end up being worth many many millions later down the road. Or it could end up being worthless if the company goes bankrupt. Nothing is ever guaranteed with stock.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Or how about not allowing "Stock-Based" compensation, CASH ONLY!

It's hilarious how the same people advocating for this are the same ones who would likely advocate for workers cooperatives or something, not understanding that you just prevented those from existing if workers cannot be given any ownership share as compensation.

Learn some basic finance.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Or how about not allowing "Stock-Based" compensation, CASH ONLY!

how else are you supposed to incentivize a CEO to have the best interests of his shareholders in mind?
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

It's hilarious how the same people advocating for this are the same ones who would likely advocate for workers cooperatives or something, not understanding that you just prevented those from existing if workers cannot be given any ownership share as compensation.

Learn some basic finance.

I never advocated for workers co-operatives, you made that assumption on your own.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

how else are you supposed to incentivize a CEO to have the best interests of his shareholders in mind?

It's not like stock shares guarantee it currently given how I see the way many CEO behaves.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Or how about not allowing "Stock-Based" compensation, CASH ONLY!

how else are you supposed to incentivize a CEO to have the best interests of his shareholders in mind?

you're not
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

how else are you supposed to incentivize a CEO to have the best interests of his shareholders in mind?

It's not like stock shares guarantee it currently given how I see the way many CEO behaves.

Like what? Give an example.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

how else are you supposed to incentivize a CEO to have the best interests of his shareholders in mind?

It's not like stock shares guarantee it currently given how I see the way many CEO behaves.

Like what? Give an example.

Go look up how Sears is being intentionally being run into the ground.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Go look up how Sears is being intentionally being run into the ground.

Yeah I heard something about this mentioned elsewhere. If it's true, then the shareholders certainly have a strong case to sue the CEO for violating his fiduciary duty.

Look up how Eduardo Saverin sued Mark Zuckerberg after Mark Zuckerberg tried to screw him over.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Yeah I heard something about this mentioned elsewhere. If it's true, then the shareholders certainly have a strong case to sue the CEO for violating his fiduciary duty.

Sears is arguably better off going defunct. The company would instantly become the landlord of prime commercial real estate, instead of being an owner-operator of the land and buildings.

My god... there are way too many replies for a joke topic I made when I was drunk >_>

Let me just edit the OP

...

Looks like I can't. Oh well.
---

frozenshock posted...

My god... there are way too many replies for a joke topic I made when I was drunk >_>

It turned out... not awful.

Questionmarktarius posted...

frozenshock posted...

My god... there are way too many replies for a joke topic I made when I was drunk >_>

It turned out... not awful.

Yeah, usually my drunk topics only get one or two replies

But whatever I have to stop drinking. My liver is screaming at me. And it makes people think I'm a troll.... I'm not a troll I'm just someone with a drinking problem who often posts drunk :(
---

Reiss posted...

Haha fuck yeah brother, share the poverty. Hail Stalin!

I hear things like this a lot but the math doesn't seem to add up

I mean the top 1% owns like, what, 50%? Of the wealth (or was it 80%?)

Where the fuck would the other 50% or 80% go in order to make everyone poor
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Yeah I heard something about this mentioned elsewhere. If it's true, then the shareholders certainly have a strong case to sue the CEO for violating his fiduciary duty.

Sears is arguably better off going defunct. The company would instantly become the landlord of prime commercial real estate, instead of being an owner-operator of the land and buildings.

Oh okay. No need to sue then.
---

minimum wage should be at least $20 in California. As long as you flip patties in a quickly fashion and professional manner, the wage is justified.
---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Reiss posted...

Haha fuck yeah brother, share the poverty. Hail Stalin!

I hear things like this a lot but the math doesn't seem to add up

I mean the top 1% owns like, what, 50%? Of the wealth (or was it 80%?)

Where the fuck would the other 50% or 80% go in order to make everyone poor

Heh.

One thing that really stuck with me was from the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama was saying that the richest americans were owning a bigger and bigger percentage of the wealth while the poorest were owning a smaller and smaller percentage.

John McCain replied to this argument by saying that, yes the rich get a larger and large slice of the pie, but the pie itself is getting bigger and bigger... so that even if the poor get a smaller and smaller percentage, that smaller percentage means more and more wealth because the pie itself gets bigger.

I thought it made sense but whatever. It's probably one of those "true but misleading" things I suppose.
---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Where the fuck would the other 50% or 80% go in order to make everyone poor

It would lose most of its value because

1) It's mostly things like stock and real-estate whose values change with the market.

2) The current market-value is the equilibrium in our current system where you have all these investors competing for each other to buy these investments.

3) If you suddenly seized all this wealth from investors, you would no longer have the same equilibrium prices. They would drop dramatically as fewer investors compete with each other to buy these things (or they have less money to invest).

So the value of that wealth would plummet. Hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth would suddenly no longer exist after the stock and real estate crashes.
---

frozenshock posted...

I thought it made sense but whatever. It's probably one of those "true but misleading" things I suppose.

By the raw numbers, you're better off being "poor" in the US than "poor" anywhere else, give or take Scandinavia.

frozenshock posted...

John McCain replied to this argument by saying that, yes the rich get a larger and large slice of the pie, but the pie itself is getting bigger and bigger... so that even if the poor get a smaller and smaller percentage, that smaller percentage means more and more wealth because the pie itself gets bigger.

I thought it made sense but whatever. It's probably one of those "true but misleading" things I suppose.

He's not wrong. Growing the size of the pie (long-run economic growth) is incredibly important, and it's the reason we have such a high standard of living today compared to say 100 years ago. Technology in particular helps to make that pie a lot bigger.

Where you see things getting more expensive, it's stuff like housing (often thanks to NIMBYism), healthcare, childcare, and other things that are very labor driven. If the price of labor goes up, so will the price of childcare, certainly much more so than in an industry that has benefited from technology boosting productivity like manufacturing.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

frozenshock posted...

John McCain replied to this argument by saying that, yes the rich get a larger and large slice of the pie, but the pie itself is getting bigger and bigger... so that even if the poor get a smaller and smaller percentage, that smaller percentage means more and more wealth because the pie itself gets bigger.

I thought it made sense but whatever. It's probably one of those "true but misleading" things I suppose.

He's not wrong. Growing the size of the pie (long-run economic growth) is incredibly important, and it's the reason we have such a high standard of living today compared to say 100 years ago. Technology in particular helps to make that pie a lot bigger.

Where you see things getting more expensive, it's stuff like housing (often thanks to NIMBYism), healthcare, childcare, and other things that are very labor driven. If the price of labor goes up, so will the price of childcare, certainly much more so than in an industry that has benefited from technology boosting productivity like manufacturing.

Yeah no question the standard of living is not even comparable today to 100 years ago.

But... I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but I have the impression that the middle class is weaker today than it was maybe 20 years ago. It's just an impression but I wonder if the numbers back it up. Although it's probably not simple to define "middle class" specifically
---