|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 15:01:53 GMT
Not as much as rich people need people of limited material means who are willing to sell their labour and talents for limited return. Do you think the working relationship would change if the salaries were closer to each other?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 24, 2017 16:07:43 GMT
What say you? Would the economy or tax systems collapse if everyone was middle class or lower? Should Tom Cruise being making an blue collar salary? Lawyers and doctors capped at 50/hour? Business owners averaging their revenue across all employees and prices so that everyone, including the owner, make the same amount of money with the difference going to government or charity or something? How would one go about eliminating rich people?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 24, 2017 16:19:30 GMT
What say you? Would the economy or tax systems collapse if everyone was middle class or lower? Should Tom Cruise being making an blue collar salary? Lawyers and doctors capped at 50/hour? Business owners averaging their revenue across all employees and prices so that everyone, including the owner, make the same amount of money with the difference going to government or charity or something? How would one go about eliminating rich people? Easy. "'First,' said White, 'all capitalists would be taken out and hanged. Those who opposed us, of course, would merely be shot.'" The Third Bullet, John Dickson Carr. (JDC and I aren't exactly fans of socialism, if you haven't guessed.)
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 16:53:30 GMT
CinemachineryI don't know. Let's make up a scenario. So die hard Bernie Sanders type, but extreme, says everyone should make the same amount of money. Now we know that over that generation, it'll be somewhat of a disaster as industries change and shift to conform to the new normal. After the dust settles, though, everyone is making the same amount despite have the different job titles. Another scenario could be that everyone can make different levels of wages but no more than what would be considered middle class. I'm OK with either one of those as the question mainly has to do with what would happen if the top 1-3% earners no longer existed in an economic way.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Apr 24, 2017 16:53:59 GMT
Yes, we need rich people. They have the best stuff. Who better to steal from? I need goals in life to which I can aspire. I know that all the years of patience, long days and nights of hard work and dogged perseverance will really pay off when I win the Powerball lottery.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 24, 2017 17:11:04 GMT
Cinemachinery I don't know. Let's make up a scenario. So die hard Bernie Sanders type, but extreme, says everyone should make the same amount of money. Now we know that over that generation, it'll be somewhat of a disaster as industries change and shift to conform to the new normal. After the dust settles, though, everyone is making the same amount despite have the different job titles. Another scenario could be that everyone can make different levels of wages but no more than what would be considered middle class. I'm OK with either one of those as the question mainly has to do with what would happen if the top 1-3% earners no longer existed in an economic way. Disaster. Why would people dedicate themselves to years-long specialties in the medical profession, for example, when they can make the same money sitting at a desk pushing papers with little to no training? Add to that the inevitable brain drain that would occur as those who DO specialize and dedicate years to education and ability leave for climes that compensate them accordingly. Further, how does one accommodate artists? Writers? Actors? Do they have to work a certain number of shows to make their set amount? Or one really "good" show for the year? How do you quantify? How many sculptures would a sculptor need to produce in order to make their income? How many books would a writer need to publish? It seems unworkable.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 24, 2017 17:13:01 GMT
tpfkar I'd be happy if there were sufficient burns for abusing the system, buying political influence, etc. When that's not curtailed, eventually there ends up being a culling of some kind. it's time the fat cats had a heart attack
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Apr 24, 2017 20:28:33 GMT
Cinemachinery I don't know. Let's make up a scenario. So die hard Bernie Sanders type, but extreme, says everyone should make the same amount of money. Now we know that over that generation, it'll be somewhat of a disaster as industries change and shift to conform to the new normal. After the dust settles, though, everyone is making the same amount despite have the different job titles. Another scenario could be that everyone can make different levels of wages but no more than what would be considered middle class. I'm OK with either one of those as the question mainly has to do with what would happen if the top 1-3% earners no longer existed in an economic way. Do you think if we manage to get back to the days where the guys in the top jobs were only earning about ten or twenty times what they guys at the bottom were (it's more like a hundred times today) we'd be better off?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 20:55:02 GMT
altheaProbably not. However, that would still be considered rich
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Apr 24, 2017 21:22:18 GMT
althea Probably not. However, that would still be considered rich I'm just trying to figure out where you'd draw the line if you were going to cap top wages at a middle class level while still allowing differences to solve the difficulties of everyone earning the same no matter how much work they do. Are you still using income tax brackets?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 1,305
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 24, 2017 21:27:19 GMT
Cinemachinery I don't know. Let's make up a scenario. So die hard Bernie Sanders type, but extreme, says everyone should make the same amount of money. Now we know that over that generation, it'll be somewhat of a disaster as industries change and shift to conform to the new normal. After the dust settles, though, everyone is making the same amount despite have the different job titles. Another scenario could be that everyone can make different levels of wages but no more than what would be considered middle class. I'm OK with either one of those as the question mainly has to do with what would happen if the top 1-3% earners no longer existed in an economic way. Disaster. Why would people dedicate themselves to years-long specialties in the medical profession, for example, when they can make the same money sitting at a desk pushing papers with little to no training? Easy, pay doctors while they train. Which is why Engels said socialism should start in the wealthiest nations then spread. How does it work for artists in capitalist countries? You either do it in your spare time and make your living off something else; or you get enough people to pay for your art. In a socialist system, you either do it in your spare time or enough people purchase your art that the government pays you to do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:46:26 GMT
Not as much as rich people need people of limited material means who are willing to sell their labour and talents for limited return. Do you think the working relationship would change if the salaries were closer to each other? The relationship between the haves and have nots? Material richess isn't an evil in and of itself. It's how wealth is created and the how wealth is used .. that's where the problems arise.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 24, 2017 22:01:23 GMT
Then they'd be paid the same for years-long grueling studies and incredibly long hours at the same rate as Johnny the security guard, who trained one day and now sits at a kiosk for a living. So... problem is still a problem. Johnny made the same for those 8 years, he slept more, he did less, he got greater returns.
Yeah but "should" is not "would" - if we're just propping up ludicrous pipe dream of all the wealthiest countries simultaneously moving to socialism, why not make it an all-the-way pipe dream and make it "all countries on the same socialist system"? that certainly eliminates the problems even if it is a cartoon of an idea that's even more unfeasible than ONE country successfully transitioning to this model.
That aside, it's not a workable solution - the wealthiest countries in the world could move to this model and the middle-on-down-countries could easily top yearly salary for top scientists - many of the poorest countries features incredibly rich ruling classes.
We tend not to eat much unless we're part of the 1% that achieve fame.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 1,305
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 24, 2017 22:15:59 GMT
Then they'd be paid the same for years-long grueling studies and incredibly long hours at the same rate as Johnny the security guard, who trained one day and now sits at a kiosk for a living. So... problem is still a problem. Johnny made the same for those 8 years, he slept more, he did less, he got greater returns. The long hours aren't necessary, in fact they make doctors less effective. Well the idea is the poorest countries wouldn't exist very long once the dominoes start toppling. Plus how many doctors would want to leave comfortable jobs in their home countries for high paid jobs in horrible places? I'm sure some would but hardly enough to destroy society. So what's the issue? Things are already terrible for artists.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 24, 2017 22:23:10 GMT
So step 1: restructure all industries so that hours are near equal across the board. An equally unworkable task, especially given the nature of medical work and patient care, given that disease and medical issues don't know hours.
A country able to pay researchers, scientists and inventors top dollar certainly isn't going to remain poor for long.
The issue is it's impossible to pay someone "the same as everyone else" when their work is valued by perception. That's just the first of many issues when it comes to ultra-socialist models (which is why they simply never work}.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 1,305
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 24, 2017 22:37:02 GMT
So step 1: restructure all industries so that hours are near equal across the board. An equally unworkable task, especially given the nature of medical work and patient care, given that disease and medical issues don't know hours. No, you're never going to get it precisely. Some jobs will have better benefits, fewer hours, less tedium, more satisfaction etc. But the idea that people only do harder jobs for the money is silly. Nursing for instance is a tough job that's relatively low paid. Even being a doctor is tougher work and less rewarding than some careers in finance etc. Such inequality wouldn't last 5 minutes once revolutions start popping up. The issue is it's impossible to pay someone "the same as everyone else" when their work is valued by perception. That's just the first of many issues when it comes to ultra-socialist models (which is why they simply never work}. [/quote] Nonsense. If your work is perceived as worth having people will pay it and that money comes back to the government. The government pay you a salary. It might not be equal to what is spent on you but you'll still get a comfortable salary for doing what you love.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 22:38:57 GMT
Yes. The wealthy usually give back to the community through charities and are leaders. The higher the population of wealthy people, the better the economy, usually.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 23:00:17 GMT
Do you think the working relationship would change if the salaries were closer to each other? The relationship between the haves and have nots? Material richess isn't an evil in and of itself. It's how wealth is created and the how wealth is used .. that's where the problems arise. To me this sounds like you are saying that a person can make as much as they want as long as they use it to help poorer people. Otherwise, how is wealth supposed to be used?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 23:21:25 GMT
althea Probably not. However, that would still be considered rich I'm just trying to figure out where you'd draw the line if you were going to cap top wages at a middle class level while still allowing differences to solve the difficulties of everyone earning the same no matter how much work they do. Are you still using income tax brackets? To be clear, I'm not drawing a line. In most cultures, it is usually apparent who the wealthy are in a community in contrast to the rest of us. If one cannot tell, then maybe there is already an equalization happening. However, that's irrelevant to the question and I shouldn't have spent any time explain it in any detail beyond the tax brackets since all we are talking about is money and what would be needed to run a good economy For example, not everyone has to make the same amount of money (Although that could be a scenario). maybe a Mcdonald's work makes 20k a year, a doctor makes 150k a year, a greedy banker makes 80k/year. There's just a cap that prevents anyone from being wealthy. Would an economy be OK under those circumstances or do the rich need to exist in order for there to be a middle class?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 23:44:12 GMT
I don't have a problem with people making money, no. Depends on how they make it.. And yes, charity is a good thing but it is often a charade. Rob a billion on the down low and donate million publicly and wheh heh philanthropist of the year!
|
|