Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

OWS - Finger-Wiggling Their Way To a Better Tomorrow

1585961636487

Posts

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This article may be the single most enraging thing I've ever read. It's a bunch of bankers and Wallstreet people whining about their bonuses getting cut. I almost spit on my monitor.
    "Yes, terminal diseases are worse than getting the flu," he said. "But you suffer when you get the flu."

    Fuck this guy. Fuck everyone in these articles. Except the dog guy, he seemed reasonable, what with actually putting money in savings and selling off unneeded luxuries.

    Houn on
    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Well, if you're going to argue that we should have been more conscientious of the effects of prohibiting slavery on the slave owners, I'm not sure we can proceed with reasonable, intelligent debate.

    Worst example of relativism ever.

    I am just saying that no matter how strongly you believe something is the case, you need to present an argument for it. You can't just say "let's take money from the 1% to make life better for the poor" without any justification and be done with it. In the slavery case, the argument is REALLY easy, but it still needed to be made. If the end of slavery would have literally meant the end of a sustainable economy in the south and everyone living there would have starved to death, you would need to make an argument for why we should get rid of it that is more than "slavery is bad." I am NOT saying this is analogous to the current situation at all, just that any change from the status quo requires justificaiton, and consideration of the impact on those hurt.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Vanguard wrote: »
    True, but that is not the situation we are dealing with at all.

    So...what was your point? You seem to be arguing against changing the status quo because whatever ideal society we can envision will never exist. That's pretty much the same argument that could be used for any number of terrible things like slavery, women's rights, or labor laws.

    Furthermore, you've argued that hard work pays off. Since it would be hard, but ultimately beneficial to strive towards a better overall society, why would we not work towards it?

    No, I'm not saying keep the status quo, I'm saying that income inequality in itself is not something we can change. The magnitude of the inequality may be something we can and should change, but income inequality will and should continue to exist.

    Hard work pays off <> we should do things because they are hard. Also, better for who? As much as we like to say that ending slavery made the world better for everybody, it was pretty bad for slave owners. You need to define who you want to benefit, and why benefiting them justifies hurting the people that will lose as a result of your change.

    Here you go buddy.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

    Everything you say in this post is false.

    Reducing income inequality benefits everyone, including the top %. We can narrow the income inequality gap and we certainly should.

    Lilnoobs on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This article may be the single most enraging thing I've ever read. It's a bunch of bankers and Wallstreet people whining about their bonuses getting cut. I almost spit on my monitor.

    So yeah, these are not the most sympathtic people on earth (and I'm sure that is why they were chosen for this story) but if you receive a bonus of a certain size every year, and make economic decisions on the seemingly reasonable assumption that this will continue, then I think it is reasonable to be upset if your bonus suddenly drops a great deal, and now you can't afford that life style.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    I don't think it's reasonable at all. A smart man recognizes a bonus for what it is; it's right there in the name, "bonus".

    I receive bonuses. They vary in amount based on a number of factors, and aren't even a guaranteed income source. As such, they are not accounted for in my financial planning one bit, and when I get them, I make decisions on how to use them afterward.

    I learned well the lesson of Clark Griswold. Jelly of the Month Club, indeed.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    If the end of slavery would have literally meant the end of a sustainable economy in the south and everyone living there would have starved to death, you would need to make an argument for why we should get rid of it that is more than "slavery is bad."

    Actually, that is a perfectly fine argument, especially in the case of getting rid of slavery. An argument that something should be stopped because it is morally reprehensible is acceptable, and there's no need to take into account the effects ending the practice would have on those benefiting from it. Now, you can also take a more reasoned approach, look at things rationally, try to see the other side and extended consequences etc, and in all honesty I believe that we should aspire to that, but there's nothing wrong with the first argument.

    We don't often try to see the benefits that murder bestows upon murderers, and how they'll lose out when we prohibit murder. You're changing the equation in your statement above by subtly adding the counterargument that slavery keeps the South out of starvation - that stability (even if perhaps immoral) effectively trumps uncertainty (even if it is the right thing) - and that we have to address that before we suggest change. We really should address that, for sure, but it does not preclude the call for change at all, just a very specific change.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This article may be the single most enraging thing I've ever read. It's a bunch of bankers and Wallstreet people whining about their bonuses getting cut. I almost spit on my monitor.

    So yeah, these are not the most sympathtic people on earth (and I'm sure that is why they were chosen for this story) but if you receive a bonus of a certain size every year, and make economic decisions on the seemingly reasonable assumption that this will continue, then I think it is reasonable to be upset if your bonus suddenly drops a great deal, and now you can't afford that life style.

    I don't care how much you depend on your nauseatingly large bonus, if you're bitching about having to cut out ski trips to Aspen you can go fuck yourself in the face.

    I know that's not what you're doing, so that's absolutely not directed at you. Just wanted to make that clear.

    TheCanMan on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This article may be the single most enraging thing I've ever read. It's a bunch of bankers and Wallstreet people whining about their bonuses getting cut. I almost spit on my monitor.

    So yeah, these are not the most sympathtic people on earth (and I'm sure that is why they were chosen for this story) but if you receive a bonus of a certain size every year, and make economic decisions on the seemingly reasonable assumption that this will continue, then I think it is reasonable to be upset if your bonus suddenly drops a great deal, and now you can't afford that life style.

    I don't care how much you depend on your nauseatingly large bonus, if you're bitching about having to cut out ski trips to Aspen you can go fuck yourself in the face.

    I know that's not what you're doing, so that's absolutely not directed at you. Just wanted to make that clear.

    If your lifestyle is contingent on your bonus, a thing which is by definition not guaranteed and could change value from year to year, you should make some changes to your spending habits.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    Ego wrote: »
    Not nothing, they just get taxed for the value above $100k. You'd probably still want a system in place to adjust taxes based on things like cost of living. But I bet there's a lot of room between $100,000 and $5,000,000 to find a more reasonable place for estate tax than where it is now.

    I think that any attempt to move away from the single economic unit view of a family is very dangerous. In this world, you should never become a house wife/husband, because if your working spouse dies, you will be left with very little, even though your work maintaining the house, watching the kids, etc. enabled the working spouse to work. I really can't see any reason that we should think that when the working spouse dies, the widow/er should get anything less that the full amount their spouse earned.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most married couples keep joint bank accounts anyway? So it wouldn't even apply.

    Now, if both parents are killed in a car wreck, then the kids would get (Value of parents' assets) - (Debts, funeral expenses, etc) + (Any life insurance or social security payouts, etc) - (% on the sum over a certain amount).

    I can't see how an estate tax could leave someone impoverished or disadvantaged.

    eokNV.jpg
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    adytum wrote: »
    And nobody is seriously suggesting that society should work to eliminate income inequality completely, so can that straw man be dropped?

    So then how far do you want to go? What plausible actions would you propose taking to reduce income inequality, who should the winners be, and why should we value giving them more over the status quo? These are earnest questions.

    How about we, as a country, start with basic comprehensive social safety net programs? You know, to make sure nobody is homeless and starving in the street? From there we can work up to equal minimum access to education and health care.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    You can't just say "let's take money from the 1% to make life better for the poor" without any justification and be done with it.

    Did I say that? Did anyone in this thread? OWS? I think you're projecting here.

    If the end of slavery would have literally meant the end of a sustainable economy in the south and everyone living there would have starved to death, you would need to make an argument for why we should get rid of it that is more than "slavery is bad." I am NOT saying this is analogous to the current situation at all, just that any change from the status quo requires justificaiton, and consideration of the impact on those hurt.

    Okay, let's flip this situation. The Africans we stole from their homelands and forced into slavery were not part of America's status quo. Make an argument that takes into account the impact of 400 years of kidnapping, raping, and enslaving an entire group of people for the benefit of a functional Southern economy.

    If you're not willing to do this, then we, by no means, have to justify ending such practices beyond "slavery is awful."

    I am just saying that no matter how strongly you believe something is the case, you need to present an argument for it.

    You should take your own advice.

    Vanguard on
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I'll say that.

    I think we should take some money from the 1% and give it to the poor in the form of taxes. In fact, set the top marginal rate (and make capital gains have its own progressive tax structure with a marginal rate) to go up when unemployment goes up.

    This way, the rich can simply hire the poor and stop paying so much taxes!

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If the end of slavery would have literally meant the end of a sustainable economy in the south and everyone living there would have starved to death, you would need to make an argument for why we should get rid of it that is more than "slavery is bad."

    Actually, that is a perfectly fine argument, especially in the case of getting rid of slavery. An argument that something should be stopped because it is morally reprehensible is acceptable, and there's no need to take into account the effects ending the practice would have on those benefiting from it. Now, you can also take a more reasoned approach, look at things rationally, try to see the other side and extended consequences etc, and in all honesty I believe that we should aspire to that, but there's nothing wrong with the first argument.

    We don't often try to see the benefits that murder bestows upon murderers, and how they'll lose out when we prohibit murder. You're changing the equation in your statement above by subtly adding the counterargument that slavery keeps the South out of starvation - that stability (even if perhaps immoral) effectively trumps uncertainty (even if it is the right thing) - and that we have to address that before we suggest change. We really should address that, for sure, but it does not preclude the call for change at all, just a very specific change.


    That is an excellent point. The certainty is unrealistic, and most situations in real life will not ever follow such a simple causal chain. There probably is no set of realistic factors that could lead to justifying slavery, only crazy hypotheticals.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I'll say that.

    I think we should take some money from the 1% and give it to the poor in the form of taxes. In fact, set the top marginal rate (and make capital gains have its own progressive tax structure with a marginal rate) to go up when unemployment goes up.

    This way, the rich can simply hire the poor and stop paying so much taxes!

    Engaging with the market to solve social problems in a way that makes sense within the free market system?

    Communist.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Not nothing, they just get taxed for the value above $100k. You'd probably still want a system in place to adjust taxes based on things like cost of living. But I bet there's a lot of room between $100,000 and $5,000,000 to find a more reasonable place for estate tax than where it is now.

    I think that any attempt to move away from the single economic unit view of a family is very dangerous. In this world, you should never become a house wife/husband, because if your working spouse dies, you will be left with very little, even though your work maintaining the house, watching the kids, etc. enabled the working spouse to work. I really can't see any reason that we should think that when the working spouse dies, the widow/er should get anything less that the full amount their spouse earned.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most married couples keep joint bank accounts anyway? So it wouldn't even apply.

    Now, if both parents are killed in a car wreck, then the kids would get (Value of parents' assets) - (Debts, funeral expenses, etc) + (Any life insurance or social security payouts, etc) - (% on the sum over a certain amount).

    I can't see how an estate tax could leave someone impoverished or disadvantaged.

    Not neccessarily. And assets may be titled in one spouses name. But that is besides the point. If you have to justify your estate tax by assuming that people are doing basic, sound estate planning, then I think you have tuned your system wrong. Why should the effect to a spouse be radically different if the house is in both names or just one?

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    adytum wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    And nobody is seriously suggesting that society should work to eliminate income inequality completely, so can that straw man be dropped?

    So then how far do you want to go? What plausible actions would you propose taking to reduce income inequality, who should the winners be, and why should we value giving them more over the status quo? These are earnest questions.

    How about we, as a country, start with basic comprehensive social safety net programs? You know, to make sure nobody is homeless and starving in the street? From there we can work up to equal minimum access to education and health care.

    I agree with that 100%, actually.

  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Not nothing, they just get taxed for the value above $100k. You'd probably still want a system in place to adjust taxes based on things like cost of living. But I bet there's a lot of room between $100,000 and $5,000,000 to find a more reasonable place for estate tax than where it is now.

    I think that any attempt to move away from the single economic unit view of a family is very dangerous. In this world, you should never become a house wife/husband, because if your working spouse dies, you will be left with very little, even though your work maintaining the house, watching the kids, etc. enabled the working spouse to work. I really can't see any reason that we should think that when the working spouse dies, the widow/er should get anything less that the full amount their spouse earned.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most married couples keep joint bank accounts anyway? So it wouldn't even apply.

    Now, if both parents are killed in a car wreck, then the kids would get (Value of parents' assets) - (Debts, funeral expenses, etc) + (Any life insurance or social security payouts, etc) - (% on the sum over a certain amount).

    I can't see how an estate tax could leave someone impoverished or disadvantaged.

    Not neccessarily. And assets may be titled in one spouses name. But that is besides the point. If you have to justify your estate tax by assuming that people are doing basic, sound estate planning, then I think you have tuned your system wrong. Why should the effect to a spouse be radically different if the house is in both names or just one?

    o_O

    This hypothetical is discussing people with over $100k in inheritable assets? Do people generally accumulate a $100k nest egg without an accountant? Even if so, I'm still not going to cry if only 95% of that goes to your kids because you didn't employ even a modicum of financial planning.

    Furthermore, I think that you are exaggerating the likelihood of this occurrence as well as the impact. I concede that it is possible that one or the other partner could have some assets in individual and not joint accounts, but I would think that that would be unlikely to reach a valuation subject to a significant amount of estate tax, especially considering that as the likelihood of this situation increases, so does the likelihood that the family is otherwise wealthy.

    eokNV.jpg
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    Most middle class homes are worth well over $100k.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    You don't think the rich work long hours?

    Not as long or hard as their workers.
    Someone needs to win, and as a society, we can choose the rules, but I don't think we are really capable of creating a world where everyone is a winner, without choosing to artificially cap how far you can go. We can (and maybe should) make sure that the game is more competitive, so that the winners don't lap everyone else 10 times, but arguing against inequality as a concept seems like a way of saying everyone just has to settle for mediocre.

    The ones who make the rules have the power. Unfortunately the people with that power are the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.

    Inequality, at the current extent any way, is a bad concept. Especially when the people with power are hogging all the wealth and power. Corporations would be better off rewarding employees with bonuses whenever they reach x profits and spread it around equally, not let the corporate fuedal lord wannabe's keep all the profits primarily because their rank. The bosses didn't get their profits on their own. Without their employees doing the hard work their profit margins would shrink considerably.

    I detest the public being called "mediocre". Having more money or power isn't a requisite for being a superior human being.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    One does not have to be a fire breathing liberal to think that the current level of income disparity is bad, nor does one have to be a communist to want to correct that problem.

    SPKF, you're getting uncomfortably close (that is to say, close at all) to NomadicCircle levels of rich people deification and divine right here.

    As a conservative, I don't want a world where everyone is made equal by the government, I want a world where everyone has an equal chance to get ahead. Currently, we have a world where the guys who lucked out have decided that this makes them superior and they're gaming the system to keep everyone else poor or disenfranchised.

    This is not good for America.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    Most middle class homes are worth well over $100k.

    ...and they're owned free and clear?

    eokNV.jpg
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    One does not have to be a fire breathing liberal to think that the current level of income disparity is bad, nor does one have to be a communist to want to correct that problem.

    SPKF, you're getting uncomfortably close (that is to say, close at all) to NomadicCircle levels of rich people deification and divine right here.

    As a conservative, I don't want a world where everyone is made equal by the government, I want a world where everyone has an equal chance to get ahead. Currently, we have a world where the guys who lucked out have decided that this makes them superior and they're gaming the system to keep everyone else poor or disenfranchised.

    This is not good for America.

    This is just what I said before, isn't it? We need equality of opportunity, meaning everyone has a fair shot at making it, but if inequalities result in that world, then I don't think we should move to "correct" them.

  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Most middle class homes are worth well over $100k.

    ...and they're owned free and clear?

    By the time they die? I would guess mostly yes but I have no data.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    One does not have to be a fire breathing liberal to think that the current level of income disparity is bad, nor does one have to be a communist to want to correct that problem.

    SPKF, you're getting uncomfortably close (that is to say, close at all) to NomadicCircle levels of rich people deification and divine right here.

    As a conservative, I don't want a world where everyone is made equal by the government, I want a world where everyone has an equal chance to get ahead. Currently, we have a world where the guys who lucked out have decided that this makes them superior and they're gaming the system to keep everyone else poor or disenfranchised.

    This is not good for America.

    This is just what I said before, isn't it? We need equality of opportunity, meaning everyone has a fair shot at making it, but if inequalities result in that world, then I don't think we should move to "correct" them.

    Inequalities will always result from every system ever, but if they become as bad as the ones we have now, yes they should be corrected. That's part of the experiment of democracy.

    Ideally, eventually, we'll come up with a system that allows our British speaking, french born space captains to spread our manifest destiny pf equality to the stars, but we're far from that now.

    The divide between rich and poor in America is unsustainable.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    TL DR wrote: »
    Most middle class homes are worth well over $100k.

    ...and they're owned free and clear?

    By the time they die? I would guess mostly yes but I have no data.

    For the curious, roughly 22% 33% of homeowners have completely paid off their mortgage.

    Edit: fixed b/c I failed at reading a chart.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Most middle class homes are worth well over $100k.

    ...and they're owned free and clear?

    By the time they die? I would guess mostly yes but I have no data.

    For the curious, roughly 22% of homeowners have completely paid off their mortgage.

    I just did a quick skim but I got 34% have paid off their mortgage from this:

    Two thirds (66%) of all adults have mortgages on their homes, slightly lower than last year's 69%.

    I would expect the percentage of fully paid mortgages at time of estate transfer to be much higher given that being old correlates strongly with both dying and paying off your mortgage.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Most middle class homes are worth well over $100k.

    ...and they're owned free and clear?

    By the time they die? I would guess mostly yes but I have no data.

    For the curious, roughly 22% of homeowners have completely paid off their mortgage.

    I just did a quick skim but I got 34% have paid off their mortgage from this:

    Two thirds (66%) of all adults have mortgages on their homes, slightly lower than last year's 69%.

    I would expect the percentage of fully paid mortgages at time of estate transfer to be much higher given that being old correlates strongly with both dying and paying off your mortgage.

    I wonder how many people could pay off their mortgage but just invest the money instead, since the home mortgage interest dedcution effectively makes it easier for you to get a net return through investing the money you receive from you mortgage.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    You don't think the rich work long hours?

    Not as long or hard as their workers.
    Someone needs to win, and as a society, we can choose the rules, but I don't think we are really capable of creating a world where everyone is a winner, without choosing to artificially cap how far you can go. We can (and maybe should) make sure that the game is more competitive, so that the winners don't lap everyone else 10 times, but arguing against inequality as a concept seems like a way of saying everyone just has to settle for mediocre.

    The ones who make the rules have the power. Unfortunately the people with that power are the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.

    Inequality, at the current extent any way, is a bad concept. Especially when the people with power are hogging all the wealth and power. Corporations would be better off rewarding employees with bonuses whenever they reach x profits and spread it around equally, not let the corporate fuedal lord wannabe's keep all the profits primarily because their rank. The bosses didn't get their profits on their own. Without their employees doing the hard work their profit margins would shrink considerably.

    I detest the public being called "mediocre". Having more money or power isn't a requisite for being a superior human being.

    I know its just an annecdote, but I know tons of people in PE, and they work all the time. They make me look lazy. They make an absolute ton of money, but they seriously work around the clock.

    Whether corporations should pay big bonuses to executives is a seperate issue from whether they should pay bonuses to rank and files. I would be interested in seeing any studies done on the impact of bonuses paid to employees who cannot directly impact the success of the business, both in terms of productivity and the bottom line.

    I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.

  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    TL DR wrote: »
    Most middle class homes are worth well over $100k.

    ...and they're owned free and clear?

    By the time they die? I would guess mostly yes but I have no data.

    For the curious, roughly 22% of homeowners have completely paid off their mortgage.

    I just did a quick skim but I got 34% have paid off their mortgage from this:

    Two thirds (66%) of all adults have mortgages on their homes, slightly lower than last year's 69%.

    I would expect the percentage of fully paid mortgages at time of estate transfer to be much higher given that being old correlates strongly with both dying and paying off your mortgage.

    I wonder how many people could pay off their mortgage but just invest the money instead, since the home mortgage interest dedcution effectively makes it easier for you to get a net return through investing the money you receive from you mortgage.

    I'm sure that happens with how low rates currently are. For example, our mortgage is 4% APR and my marginal tax rate is somewhere around 25%, so the effective yearly return on paying down principle is around 3%. I personally think a large portion of the "money management" industry is a crock of shit but even so it's not unrealistic to expect 4-5% long-term return on the total stock market.

    Sir Landshark on
    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.
    There's a difference between 'excessive income inequality has negative effects on economic growth and a huge number of social issues' and 'there should be no income inequality'. One of occupy's biggest problems was not making this clear, although I think the only real goal there was to make the fact that there even IS income innequality a widely known thing.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.
    There's a difference between 'excessive income inequality has negative effects on economic growth and a huge number of social issues' and 'there should be no income inequality'. One of occupy's biggest problems was not making this clear, although I think the only real goal there was to make the fact that there even IS income innequality a widely known thing.

    Understood and agreed. The message from the start should have been excessive income inequality resulting from unfair practices.

    spacekungfuman on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    As I said upthread, it's a well-studied subject all around the world. When "problems with income inequality" is being discussed, it has nothing to do with the fact that income inequality exists; capitalism and globalization won, and income inequality is an inevitable part of the modern global economy. Rather, when income distributions become highly inequitable it is often the result of and factor in social and economic imbalances. I'd suggest reading some Word Bank publications on the matter if you're interested in understanding it further.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    You don't think the rich work long hours?

    Not as long or hard as their workers.
    Someone needs to win, and as a society, we can choose the rules, but I don't think we are really capable of creating a world where everyone is a winner, without choosing to artificially cap how far you can go. We can (and maybe should) make sure that the game is more competitive, so that the winners don't lap everyone else 10 times, but arguing against inequality as a concept seems like a way of saying everyone just has to settle for mediocre.

    The ones who make the rules have the power. Unfortunately the people with that power are the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.

    Inequality, at the current extent any way, is a bad concept. Especially when the people with power are hogging all the wealth and power. Corporations would be better off rewarding employees with bonuses whenever they reach x profits and spread it around equally, not let the corporate fuedal lord wannabe's keep all the profits primarily because their rank. The bosses didn't get their profits on their own. Without their employees doing the hard work their profit margins would shrink considerably.

    I detest the public being called "mediocre". Having more money or power isn't a requisite for being a superior human being.

    I know its just an annecdote, but I know tons of people in PE, and they work all the time. They make me look lazy. They make an absolute ton of money, but they seriously work around the clock.

    I'm not talking about lawyers, I was talking about your bosses. You may be high on the totem pole in your company but you're not management or it's owners.
    Whether corporations should pay big bonuses to executives is a seperate issue from whether they should pay bonuses to rank and files.

    Why is that? It's all bonuses so it's the same subject.
    I would be interested in seeing any studies done on the impact of bonuses paid to employees who cannot directly impact the success of the business, both in terms of productivity and the bottom line.

    The fact that it's morally a good thing isn't enough? There's nothing good about the bosses keeping the majority of the profits for themselves while their workers do the majority of the work.
    I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    You don't think the rich work long hours?

    Not as long or hard as their workers.
    Someone needs to win, and as a society, we can choose the rules, but I don't think we are really capable of creating a world where everyone is a winner, without choosing to artificially cap how far you can go. We can (and maybe should) make sure that the game is more competitive, so that the winners don't lap everyone else 10 times, but arguing against inequality as a concept seems like a way of saying everyone just has to settle for mediocre.

    The ones who make the rules have the power. Unfortunately the people with that power are the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.

    Inequality, at the current extent any way, is a bad concept. Especially when the people with power are hogging all the wealth and power. Corporations would be better off rewarding employees with bonuses whenever they reach x profits and spread it around equally, not let the corporate fuedal lord wannabe's keep all the profits primarily because their rank. The bosses didn't get their profits on their own. Without their employees doing the hard work their profit margins would shrink considerably.

    I detest the public being called "mediocre". Having more money or power isn't a requisite for being a superior human being.

    I know its just an annecdote, but I know tons of people in PE, and they work all the time. They make me look lazy. They make an absolute ton of money, but they seriously work around the clock.

    I'm not talking about lawyers, I was talking about your bosses. You may be high on the totem pole in your company but you're not management or it's owners.
    Whether corporations should pay big bonuses to executives is a seperate issue from whether they should pay bonuses to rank and files.

    Why is that? It's all bonuses so it's the same subject.
    I would be interested in seeing any studies done on the impact of bonuses paid to employees who cannot directly impact the success of the business, both in terms of productivity and the bottom line.

    The fact that it's morally a good thing isn't enough? There's nothing good about the bosses keeping the majority of the profits for themselves while their workers do the majority of the work.
    I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this.

    1. PE is private equity. Literally professional owners. I have never known harder workers in my life than the people that work at PE firms.

    2/3. The idea behind compensating management is that they are in the position to personally affect profits, so giving direct incentives like equity or performance bonuses to them is supposed to incent them to work harder, since their work is thought to be able to directly increase profits. This is why I said I would be interested in seeing data on how companies which give significant bonuses to rank and file employees perform. Management is also more mobile than ordinary employees, since they are in shorter supply and good executives are always in demand, so the bonuses (especially equity) are awarded to retain talent.

    4. I am saying that the goal in lowering inequality should be improving the lot of the worst off, not hurting the rich just to bring them closer to the middle.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I think you can make a good case that the inequality we see right now is the result of the rich exploiting the system and the lower classes.

    steam_sig.png
    Blog: http://www.blakesmisko.com
    Latest Woot Derby Entries: Arcade / Conan
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I'll accept that you have to give a good bonus and decent pay to your executives, that's fine. The problem is that executive pay and worker pay haven't been rising together.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    The executive pay thing is systemic though. Everyone wants higher than average pay so the average goes up constantly.

    steam_sig.png
    Blog: http://www.blakesmisko.com
    Latest Woot Derby Entries: Arcade / Conan
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    You don't think the rich work long hours?

    Not as long or hard as their workers.
    Someone needs to win, and as a society, we can choose the rules, but I don't think we are really capable of creating a world where everyone is a winner, without choosing to artificially cap how far you can go. We can (and maybe should) make sure that the game is more competitive, so that the winners don't lap everyone else 10 times, but arguing against inequality as a concept seems like a way of saying everyone just has to settle for mediocre.

    The ones who make the rules have the power. Unfortunately the people with that power are the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.

    Inequality, at the current extent any way, is a bad concept. Especially when the people with power are hogging all the wealth and power. Corporations would be better off rewarding employees with bonuses whenever they reach x profits and spread it around equally, not let the corporate fuedal lord wannabe's keep all the profits primarily because their rank. The bosses didn't get their profits on their own. Without their employees doing the hard work their profit margins would shrink considerably.

    I detest the public being called "mediocre". Having more money or power isn't a requisite for being a superior human being.

    I know its just an annecdote, but I know tons of people in PE, and they work all the time. They make me look lazy. They make an absolute ton of money, but they seriously work around the clock.

    I'm not talking about lawyers, I was talking about your bosses. You may be high on the totem pole in your company but you're not management or it's owners.
    Whether corporations should pay big bonuses to executives is a seperate issue from whether they should pay bonuses to rank and files.

    Why is that? It's all bonuses so it's the same subject.
    I would be interested in seeing any studies done on the impact of bonuses paid to employees who cannot directly impact the success of the business, both in terms of productivity and the bottom line.

    The fact that it's morally a good thing isn't enough? There's nothing good about the bosses keeping the majority of the profits for themselves while their workers do the majority of the work.
    I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this.

    1. PE is private equity. Literally professional owners. I have never known harder workers in my life than the people that work at PE firms.

    Fair enough. That said, not all owners are like that IIRC.
    2/3. The idea behind compensating management is that they are in the position to personally affect profits, so giving direct incentives like equity or performance bonuses to them is supposed to incent them to work harder, since their work is thought to be able to directly increase profits. This is why I said I would be interested in seeing data on how companies which give significant bonuses to rank and file employees perform.

    They can't effect shit without their workers doing the dirty work. There's no reason for their extra pay and perks then a higher rank and greater control over the company's payroll. Shit, the whole pay scheme for the elite is fucked up. They can get paid more than once simultaneously in a year from what I saw about the new owner of Yahoo. That's pure greed & unrestrained power.
    Management is also more mobile than ordinary employees, since they are in shorter supply and good executives are always in demand, so the bonuses (especially equity) are awarded to retain talent.

    Having more mobility isn't a good reason to have extra pay. Freelancers can do that. There are employees whose jobs are all about mobility like plumbers or cable repairmen, as well. They're still low level employees.

    Whether being headhunted from rivals, new graduates from colleges or promoted workers there will always be more managers. While not every employee can learn their skills, all it takes is searching for the right employees and they'll be replaced.
    4. I am saying that the goal in lowering inequality should be improving the lot of the worst off, not hurting the rich just to bring them closer to the middle.

    Spreading the wealth isn't hurting the rich. That's rewarding the working class properly for their services. There's no equality when the wealthy horde the majority of a company's wealth. Unless they're a very small company where they have do a majority of the work.

    Harry Dresden on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    I'll accept that you have to give a good bonus and decent pay to your executives, that's fine. The problem is that executive pay and worker pay haven't been rising together.

    Executives have gotten 500% smarter and worked that much harder in the last few decades. Workers only improve enough to track with inflation.

  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    2/3. The idea behind compensating management is that they are in the position to personally affect profits, so giving direct incentives like equity or performance bonuses to them is supposed to incent them to work harder, since their work is thought to be able to directly increase profits. This is why I said I would be interested in seeing data on how companies which give significant bonuses to rank and file employees perform. Management is also more mobile than ordinary employees, since they are in shorter supply and good executives are always in demand, so the bonuses (especially equity) are awarded to retain talent.

    I'm actually curious about this - what is it that makes managers and executives in "short supply" compared to other fields? Obviously it would be harder to get experience as an executive for a big company, but it seems like there are plenty of business graduates with the training to be managers and executives. So why are those people considered to be in such 'short supply' that they deserve huge pay relative to other employees?

    The usual argument seems to be that "the market values their skills", but that seems like a circular argument because executives so often approve their own bonuses. Obviously if you give someone the power to set their own pay they're going to value themselves extremely highly. So is there something specific about the executive skillset that your average person doesn't have, or can't learn?

    Arch wrote: »
    the lynch mob is a feature, not a bug in the democratic system
Sign In or Register to comment.