Investigating is fine. Asserting that the claims are false until the investigation occurs -- and then continuing to do so after the investigation proves the claims are true -- is bullshit propaganda, and undermines your professed cause.
Likewise, it isn't hard to find examples of police officers that engaged in various forms of misconduct being sent home with pay for a week or personally shielded from any accountability for their actions.
There is nothing I can say, no matter how true, that will change your opinion.
Well, you can imply that I have a developmental disability and change my opinion of you.
Apparently there's nothing that biologists or Catholic bishops can say, no matter the actual evidence, that will change some people's opinion that Plan B causes an abortion.
Your perspective is that of what you want to see.
True. Let me tell you what I want to see. I want to see a world where everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, and freely express those beliefs. I want to see a world where my employer has zero control over my health choices.
Let me also tell you what I do see. I see a culture where employers provide medical insurance. I see a market where medical goods and services are paid for by insurance. I see a law that defines a certain minimum acceptable insurance coverage. Now, I don't particularly like the implementation of these three systems; I'm just saying what I see.
The most elegant way to reconcile what I want to see with what I do see is to assert that the employer's influence ends when their money reaches the insurance company. The insurance company defines coverage to meet or exceed the requirements of the law. The legal minimum should be treated as an indivisible unit; the employer is not allowed to choose a policy covering less than the legal minimum, therefore the minimum can be purchased without making any moral judgement. The employer is free to choose to offer whatever extra coverage they want as part of employment contract negotiation. They can make whatever moral judgements they like about cosmetic surgery or chinese medicine.
Some employees will use their insurance benefit to treat endometriosis with hormonal supplements. Some employees will use their insurance benefit for fertility treatments. Some employees will use their insurance benefit to prevent pregnancy. Some people would never use any of these because it violates their religious beliefs. That's fine; the beneficiary of the policy gets to choose what the benefit is used for. The payer of the policy has no moral skin in this game. If the beneficiary fraudulently obtains prescription drugs and sells them on the side, the payer did not buy or sell the drugs and has committed no crime. If the beneficiary legally obtains contraceptives and uses them, the payer did not buy or use the pill and has committed no act of moral depravity. To claim otherwise is to assert that the payer's moral and religious views supersede those of the beneficiary.
Imagine that Hobby Lobby chose to renegotiate all their employment contracts, no longer providing health insurance but paying a higher salary. This salary difference is contractually constrained to the purpose of purchasing an insurance plan. The model remains the same as I described before: Hobby Lobby pays the insurance company, the insurance company puts that money in a pool, the employee spends their allotted insurance benefit. The only difference is that Hobby Lobby didn't choose the plan. The only difference is the amount of control Hobby Lobby has over the employee's health benefit. It is dissonant to assert that Hobby Lobby pays for contraception when in fact they pay for insurance. It is abhorrent to allow Hobby Lobby to withhold the legal minimum insurance coverage from their employees due to a perceived coercion to violate religious beliefs, due to Hobby Lobby's faulty models of how insurance and contraception work.
The fact is, Hobby Lobby employees don't ask Hobby Lobby to pay for their heart surgery. They ask Hobby Lobby to pay for their insurance. They ask the insurance company to pay for their heart surgery. The insurance carrier doesn't hold Hobby Lobby's payments aside to only pay for Hobby Lobby employees. It all goes into a shared account. If any beneficiary covered by that insurance provider uses their benefit to buy contraceptives, Hobby Lobby's ex-mone
I don't like this system of employer-provided health insurance, but that's the reality we're working in. Given that, I'm more interested in preserving the rights of employees to spend the insurance benefits they earned than preserving the rights of employers to dictate how the benefits they provide can be used.
Not least of which is because employers intrinsically have more power than employees. One of the roles of government is to rectify this kind of power imbalance so everyone has an equal opportunity to express their rights and to care for their body.
Hobby Lobby has every right to get up on the soapbox and scream that contraceptives are murder. They ought not have the right to tell their employees "You can't spend the money that you earned working for me on that".
Do you think this decision paves the road from the employer-provided health care system to a single-payer or each-individual health care system? I don't see it.
The employer is throwing money in an insurance pool.
The employee is spending their insurance benefit on whatever is required for their health.
The employer is not paying for contraception, they are paying for insurance. That insurance benefit is owned by the employee, earned by their labor. The employer's part in providing insurance is to get a group discount and a payroll tax exemption.
How is the government 'forcing' the employer to do things they object to religiously?
From my perspective, it's much easier to see this is as a case of the employer forcing a religious view on their employee than as a case of the government repressing a religious view of the employer.
What exactly is the substantial burden on the practice of religion imposed by throwing money into an insurance pool for the employee to spend on whatever services their health requires?
Unfortunately we can extend that to a variety of things. Do your 'sincerely held religious beliefs' outlaw blood transfusions? Looks like your exployees are going to be paying for that themselves. Organ transplants? I'm sure insurance companies would love that.
No, you are wrong. The court case explains why these things would not be allowed. This is just ignorant fear-mongering.
The case explains that these things would have to be examined individually to determine whether they could be exempted. It does not explain why these things would not be allowed.
now the people with the money get to decide how its spent.
This would be meaningful if any of the following were false:
The money is being spent on employee benefits, not corporate resources
The medical industry in the United States relies heavily on insurance
The vast majority of insurance coverage in the United States is provided by employers
To my mind, this money belongs to the employees as part of their health benefits package, and the employees should have the ultimate decision on how money is spent on their health.
You can replace poor performers with better ones without pitting your employees against each other in order to see who's in the bottom 10%. Microsoft's system was particularly egregious, to the point that there existed positions on many teams that were filled by a sacrificial employee in order that the team not be decimated every year.
Reviews are great. Rankings are terrible. Jack Welch can rot.
The US highly subsidizes petroleum. If the price of gas came to the market instead of being hidden in tax-funded direct subsidies, tax breaks, and the defense budget, we'd be paying double at the pump also. We're already paying about the same as Europe, but the money is distributed amongst all taxpayers instead of only amongst users.
Microsoft doesn't care about making money from retail purchases of Surface or Windows Phone. These divisions are patent farms and make all their money by charging licensing fees.to other tablet & phone manufacturers.
I disagree with putting deist as more devoutly religious than theists. Deism refers to belief in deity, as you say, but theism refers to belief in a particular deity with a name and personality.
Deists believe that the existence of a creator can be deduced from empirical observation, but (generally) that this deity does not interfere with the world at the level of human perception. i.e. it is reasonable to conclude that there is a powerful creative organizing force in the universe; it is reasonable to conclude that the best ethical course is to avoid killing or stealing from other humans; it is not reasonable to conclude a causative relationship between these two concepts.
Theists believe that the existence of their particular God was a divine revelation gifted to the personality in their cult of personality, and (generally) that this deity continues to be an active influence in the world. i.e. there is no morality except that given by a higher authority.
Jefferson and many of the other American founding fathers were deists. Fundamentalists are theists.
However, with the government's intervention in the housing market via easy, cheap loans, and all of the other nonsense that caused the last boom/bust cycle
Hahahaha yeah it was government intervention that caused repackaged subprime mortgages and credit default swaps. Pull the other one.
I'm not sure how this would "ensure all citizens are nudged about the poverty line." Could you elaborate?
Under the fair tax, nobody pays income or payroll tax at the time of exchanging labor for money. Everybody pays (a much higher than currently exists anywhere) sales tax when money is exchanged for goods or services. Every citizen who asks for one receives a $10k (or so) check from the IRS each year in lieu of reporting income tax and receiving a tax refund or accounting for a tax liability. Basically: every citizen receives a 10k stipend to account for poverty-level spending and for the switch from progressive tiered income tax to regressive flat sales tax.
Nick also talks a little bit about this idea that "demand" is what somehow generates wealth and creates jobs (OK, he doesn't say it quite like that, but it's clear that he thinks "we need more demand"). How does this work? How does simply wanting something create wealth?.... Producing things that people want is what creates a healthy economy.
Not simply wanting something, but wanting something, having the funds, and acting on it. The demand curve of econ 101 doesn't measure what people want, but what they are willing and able to spend. I want solar panels on my house: that doesn't mean I can just have them without taking a lot of other things into consideration. Minimum-wage worker X wants to feed and clothe his children, but he has to choose one or the other this month.
The market system is the only system which allows consumers to vote with their wallets
I completely agree.
Until the wallets are all empty.
Contributing to the economy means providing value to your fellow man by producing goods or services that he or she is willing to pay for.
Again, completely agree.
But my fellow man must be willing and able to pay for my goods and services. People are already, right now, willing to pay for more than they are able to afford. When more people are able to afford more goods and services, my contribution via production can increase to meet that demand.
Curious, how do you come to the conclusion that prices at fast food restaurants and discount retailers are "artificially low"?
Largely because of two factors: a) employees of such businesses are not paid enough to meet their needs, and they do not feel capable of asserting their needs and demanding higher wages or benefits on an individual level because of the enormous power differential between minimum wage worker with a lifeline job at stake and $billions profit multinational corporation with nothing to lose. b) their products are artificially food and artificially clothing. Imagine a minimum wage worker with $10 to spend on clothes this month, who needs a new pair of jeans. This worker can't afford to wait for 4 months to buy the $50 jeans that will last 10 years, so he buys the $10 jeans that will only last 1 year. This halves his economic efficiency. Similarly for food, with the added bonus of reduced nutritional value, leading to a vicious cycle of poor nutrition <-> poor decision making.
I concede this: I intended this word as colorful metaphor rather than a precise descriptor. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with s/oligarchy/cabal/g. Obviously corporate executives do not have -archy level governmental power over citizens.
Yet.
How do you measure productivity?
I tracked it down; yes this graphic uses GDP to measure productivity.
There is this silly notion that public sector consumption should actually be counted as production. Since there is no objective way to measure public sector "productivity" (since it is not part of a market),
I don't follow. Does not the private sector produce goods and services for the public sector to consume? Granted: there is a problem with no-bid contracts and inflationary billing to the government. Granted: the public sector is anchored to political power instead of floating on the economic sea as the private sector does. But the public sector participates in many markets.
Yes, the government distorts markets. Ideally it does so in such a way as to enforce an accounting for externalities like pollution with impacts that would otherwise be ignored or at best delayed until after their deleterious effects have already caused harm, or to ensure equal opportunity through such actions as trust-busting. I don't know a better way to accomplish these important goals other than government. Free markets don't do it: monopoly is a natural tendency of an unregulated market. Free markets don't account for the commons until they are already tragic.
also it is quite common for the public sector to be horribly inefficient with its "funds".
Also granted. This is an interesting approach to that issue.
The next top markets are real estate (13% [of GDP]),
Surely new construction and remodelling (5% of GDP) count as productivity? I'm not so sure about rental income and particularly 'imputed' rental income...
the financial/insurance industries (8%), and health care (8%).
and I'm a little squigged by these, too. It seems that "Gross Domestic Product" doesn't measure 'what we produce' so much as 'how much money we move', which is perhaps not as useful for comparative analysis of income level over time, but IMO is still an extremely important metric. Currency is the blood of the economy; the economy is healthy when currency moves and circulates, regardless of who moves it. The more hands it passes through the better. The economy is unhealthy when the flow of currency is dammed or forced to recirculate in small segments.
I believe that raising the average wage will have a better impact on the economy as a whole than raising executive compensation.
Please please watch this video if you haven't. The most evocative part IMO, paraphrased: "I make 50 times as much as [laborer X] but I don't buy 50 pairs of pants, 50 cars, 50 meals for each one he buys."
You may believe that income inequality is a social ill, but forcing its removal only serves to destroy the coordination required for a properly function market, thus lowering everyone's standard of living.
I don't necessarily agree that limiting the income ratio by law is the right approach. I do believe that it is an important metric for determining how fair, free, and just our economy actually is.
What I propose is removing barriers to entry and other mechanisms of the state that cripple competition in the market, thus reducing productivity and everyone's standard of living.
The ratio of CEO compensation to average worker compensation is now approximately 10 times its value in 1950. This is approximately commensurate with the average increase in the Dow average adjusted for inflation.
But why should CEOs receive the entire benefit of a growing economy when all actors have contributed to that growth? CEO compensation has no correlation with company performance.
As I see it, the problem has nothing to do with a free vs. a coerced market. The problem is that the market of executive compensation is entirely divorced from the market at large. "Stockholders... vote... for whatever the management recommends no matter how poor the management’s record of accomplishment may be". This is what I mean by oligarchy: a few privileged elites have control over this smaller market without the essential feedback cycles that stabilize prices in the larger economy.
The issue is that the market value of labor has plummeted in relation to productivity and in relation to the value of top earners. In the 50s one could work part time at a minimum wage job and pay rent and college tuition and walk away with a degree free and clear. Today, just to pay rent, one needs roommates or more than one part-time minimum-wage job, let alone any ability to pay for education in order to get a better job.
I believe that raising the average wage will have a better impact on the economy as a whole than raising executive compensation. I believe that income inequality is a social ill that should be addressed through policy -- not by Marxian state capture of the means of production and not through Randian private hoarding of the means of production, but through a hybrid realistic approach like "all employees should receive stock options or profit sharing if executives do".
Slashdot Mirror
Investigating is fine. Asserting that the claims are false until the investigation occurs -- and then continuing to do so after the investigation proves the claims are true -- is bullshit propaganda, and undermines your professed cause.
Likewise, it isn't hard to find examples of police officers that engaged in various forms of misconduct being sent home with pay for a week or personally shielded from any accountability for their actions.
My immediate concern: cylons.
Well, you can imply that I have a developmental disability and change my opinion of you.
Apparently there's nothing that biologists or Catholic bishops can say, no matter the actual evidence, that will change some people's opinion that Plan B causes an abortion.
True. Let me tell you what I want to see. I want to see a world where everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, and freely express those beliefs. I want to see a world where my employer has zero control over my health choices.
Let me also tell you what I do see. I see a culture where employers provide medical insurance. I see a market where medical goods and services are paid for by insurance. I see a law that defines a certain minimum acceptable insurance coverage. Now, I don't particularly like the implementation of these three systems; I'm just saying what I see.
The most elegant way to reconcile what I want to see with what I do see is to assert that the employer's influence ends when their money reaches the insurance company. The insurance company defines coverage to meet or exceed the requirements of the law. The legal minimum should be treated as an indivisible unit; the employer is not allowed to choose a policy covering less than the legal minimum, therefore the minimum can be purchased without making any moral judgement. The employer is free to choose to offer whatever extra coverage they want as part of employment contract negotiation. They can make whatever moral judgements they like about cosmetic surgery or chinese medicine.
Some employees will use their insurance benefit to treat endometriosis with hormonal supplements. Some employees will use their insurance benefit for fertility treatments. Some employees will use their insurance benefit to prevent pregnancy. Some people would never use any of these because it violates their religious beliefs. That's fine; the beneficiary of the policy gets to choose what the benefit is used for. The payer of the policy has no moral skin in this game. If the beneficiary fraudulently obtains prescription drugs and sells them on the side, the payer did not buy or sell the drugs and has committed no crime. If the beneficiary legally obtains contraceptives and uses them, the payer did not buy or use the pill and has committed no act of moral depravity. To claim otherwise is to assert that the payer's moral and religious views supersede those of the beneficiary.
Imagine that Hobby Lobby chose to renegotiate all their employment contracts, no longer providing health insurance but paying a higher salary. This salary difference is contractually constrained to the purpose of purchasing an insurance plan. The model remains the same as I described before: Hobby Lobby pays the insurance company, the insurance company puts that money in a pool, the employee spends their allotted insurance benefit. The only difference is that Hobby Lobby didn't choose the plan. The only difference is the amount of control Hobby Lobby has over the employee's health benefit. It is dissonant to assert that Hobby Lobby pays for contraception when in fact they pay for insurance. It is abhorrent to allow Hobby Lobby to withhold the legal minimum insurance coverage from their employees due to a perceived coercion to violate religious beliefs, due to Hobby Lobby's faulty models of how insurance and contraception work.
The fact is, Hobby Lobby employees don't ask Hobby Lobby to pay for their heart surgery. They ask Hobby Lobby to pay for their insurance. They ask the insurance company to pay for their heart surgery. The insurance carrier doesn't hold Hobby Lobby's payments aside to only pay for Hobby Lobby employees. It all goes into a shared account. If any beneficiary covered by that insurance provider uses their benefit to buy contraceptives, Hobby Lobby's ex-mone
If my argument is idiotic, refute it. Ad hominems are the clearest sign of a tenuous argument.
What do you mean "you people"
I don't like this system of employer-provided health insurance, but that's the reality we're working in. Given that, I'm more interested in preserving the rights of employees to spend the insurance benefits they earned than preserving the rights of employers to dictate how the benefits they provide can be used.
Not least of which is because employers intrinsically have more power than employees. One of the roles of government is to rectify this kind of power imbalance so everyone has an equal opportunity to express their rights and to care for their body.
Hobby Lobby has every right to get up on the soapbox and scream that contraceptives are murder. They ought not have the right to tell their employees "You can't spend the money that you earned working for me on that".
Do you think this decision paves the road from the employer-provided health care system to a single-payer or each-individual health care system? I don't see it.
The employer is throwing money in an insurance pool.
The employee is spending their insurance benefit on whatever is required for their health.
The employer is not paying for contraception, they are paying for insurance. That insurance benefit is owned by the employee, earned by their labor. The employer's part in providing insurance is to get a group discount and a payroll tax exemption.
How is the government 'forcing' the employer to do things they object to religiously?
From my perspective, it's much easier to see this is as a case of the employer forcing a religious view on their employee than as a case of the government repressing a religious view of the employer.
What exactly is the substantial burden on the practice of religion imposed by throwing money into an insurance pool for the employee to spend on whatever services their health requires?
Militant atheists are generally reacting to a militant religious upbringing.
Don't treat internet comments as a representative sample of humanity. That way lies woe.
The case explains that these things would have to be examined individually to determine whether they could be exempted. It does not explain why these things would not be allowed.
This would be meaningful if any of the following were false:
To my mind, this money belongs to the employees as part of their health benefits package, and the employees should have the ultimate decision on how money is spent on their health.
I suggest that you look into the distinction between logic and rhetoric.
[citation needed]
You can replace poor performers with better ones without pitting your employees against each other in order to see who's in the bottom 10%. Microsoft's system was particularly egregious, to the point that there existed positions on many teams that were filled by a sacrificial employee in order that the team not be decimated every year.
Reviews are great. Rankings are terrible. Jack Welch can rot.
The US highly subsidizes petroleum. If the price of gas came to the market instead of being hidden in tax-funded direct subsidies, tax breaks, and the defense budget, we'd be paying double at the pump also. We're already paying about the same as Europe, but the money is distributed amongst all taxpayers instead of only amongst users.
Microsoft doesn't care about making money from retail purchases of Surface or Windows Phone. These divisions are patent farms and make all their money by charging licensing fees.to other tablet & phone manufacturers.
You overgeneralize.
I'm assuming that on balance, information does more good than harm and bullets do more harm than good.
The point is that technological advancement in the press allows for information to reach more people more quickly, and that makes society better.
Technological advancement in armaments allows for bullets to reach more people more quickly, and that makes society worse.
I'm not saying I agree with TFA, but I do agree that technological advancements in the press vs. in armaments is an apples to oranges comparison.
Draw it on a globe.
I disagree with putting deist as more devoutly religious than theists. Deism refers to belief in deity, as you say, but theism refers to belief in a particular deity with a name and personality.
Deists believe that the existence of a creator can be deduced from empirical observation, but (generally) that this deity does not interfere with the world at the level of human perception. i.e. it is reasonable to conclude that there is a powerful creative organizing force in the universe; it is reasonable to conclude that the best ethical course is to avoid killing or stealing from other humans; it is not reasonable to conclude a causative relationship between these two concepts.
Theists believe that the existence of their particular God was a divine revelation gifted to the personality in their cult of personality, and (generally) that this deity continues to be an active influence in the world. i.e. there is no morality except that given by a higher authority.
Jefferson and many of the other American founding fathers were deists. Fundamentalists are theists.
"QWERTY was designed to keep keys on mechanical typewriters from jamming, Dvorak should be much faster."
"engage", "present", "be adapted"
Why do any of these require a technological solution? AFAICT these terms are still perfectly applicable to a brochure or a paragraph.
However, with the government's intervention in the housing market via easy, cheap loans, and all of the other nonsense that caused the last boom/bust cycle
Hahahaha yeah it was government intervention that caused repackaged subprime mortgages and credit default swaps. Pull the other one.
I'm not sure how this would "ensure all citizens are nudged about the poverty line." Could you elaborate?
Under the fair tax, nobody pays income or payroll tax at the time of exchanging labor for money. Everybody pays (a much higher than currently exists anywhere) sales tax when money is exchanged for goods or services. Every citizen who asks for one receives a $10k (or so) check from the IRS each year in lieu of reporting income tax and receiving a tax refund or accounting for a tax liability. Basically: every citizen receives a 10k stipend to account for poverty-level spending and for the switch from progressive tiered income tax to regressive flat sales tax.
Nick also talks a little bit about this idea that "demand" is what somehow generates wealth and creates jobs (OK, he doesn't say it quite like that, but it's clear that he thinks "we need more demand"). How does this work? How does simply wanting something create wealth?.... Producing things that people want is what creates a healthy economy.
Not simply wanting something, but wanting something, having the funds, and acting on it. The demand curve of econ 101 doesn't measure what people want, but what they are willing and able to spend. I want solar panels on my house: that doesn't mean I can just have them without taking a lot of other things into consideration. Minimum-wage worker X wants to feed and clothe his children, but he has to choose one or the other this month.
The market system is the only system which allows consumers to vote with their wallets
I completely agree.
Until the wallets are all empty.
Contributing to the economy means providing value to your fellow man by producing goods or services that he or she is willing to pay for.
Again, completely agree.
But my fellow man must be willing and able to pay for my goods and services. People are already, right now, willing to pay for more than they are able to afford. When more people are able to afford more goods and services, my contribution via production can increase to meet that demand.
Curious, how do you come to the conclusion that prices at fast food restaurants and discount retailers are "artificially low"?
Largely because of two factors:
a) employees of such businesses are not paid enough to meet their needs, and they do not feel capable of asserting their needs and demanding higher wages or benefits on an individual level because of the enormous power differential between minimum wage worker with a lifeline job at stake and $billions profit multinational corporation with nothing to lose.
b) their products are artificially food and artificially clothing. Imagine a minimum wage worker with $10 to spend on clothes this month, who needs a new pair of jeans. This worker can't afford to wait for 4 months to buy the $50 jeans that will last 10 years, so he buys the $10 jeans that will only last 1 year. This halves his economic efficiency. Similarly for food, with the added bonus of reduced nutritional value, leading to a vicious cycle of poor nutrition <-> poor decision making.
your definition of oligarchy is quite arbitrary
I concede this: I intended this word as colorful metaphor rather than a precise descriptor. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with s/oligarchy/cabal/g. Obviously corporate executives do not have -archy level governmental power over citizens.
Yet.
How do you measure productivity?
I tracked it down; yes this graphic uses GDP to measure productivity.
There is this silly notion that public sector consumption should actually be counted as production. Since there is no objective way to measure public sector "productivity" (since it is not part of a market),
I don't follow. Does not the private sector produce goods and services for the public sector to consume? Granted: there is a problem with no-bid contracts and inflationary billing to the government. Granted: the public sector is anchored to political power instead of floating on the economic sea as the private sector does. But the public sector participates in many markets.
Yes, the government distorts markets. Ideally it does so in such a way as to enforce an accounting for externalities like pollution with impacts that would otherwise be ignored or at best delayed until after their deleterious effects have already caused harm, or to ensure equal opportunity through such actions as trust-busting. I don't know a better way to accomplish these important goals other than government. Free markets don't do it: monopoly is a natural tendency of an unregulated market. Free markets don't account for the commons until they are already tragic.
also it is quite common for the public sector to be horribly inefficient with its "funds".
Also granted. This is an interesting approach to that issue.
The next top markets are real estate (13% [of GDP]),
Surely new construction and remodelling (5% of GDP) count as productivity? I'm not so sure about rental income and particularly 'imputed' rental income...
the financial/insurance industries (8%), and health care (8%).
and I'm a little squigged by these, too. It seems that "Gross Domestic Product" doesn't measure 'what we produce' so much as 'how much money we move', which is perhaps not as useful for comparative analysis of income level over time, but IMO is still an extremely important metric. Currency is the blood of the economy; the economy is healthy when currency moves and circulates, regardless of who moves it. The more hands it passes through the better. The economy is unhealthy when the flow of currency is dammed or forced to recirculate in small segments.
I believe that raising the average wage will have a better impact on the economy as a whole than raising executive compensation.
Please please watch this video if you haven't. The most evocative part IMO, paraphrased: "I make 50 times as much as [laborer X] but I don't buy 50 pairs of pants, 50 cars, 50 meals for each one he buys."
You may believe that income inequality is a social ill, but forcing its removal only serves to destroy the coordination required for a properly function market, thus lowering everyone's standard of living.
I don't necessarily agree that limiting the income ratio by law is the right approach. I do believe that it is an important metric for determining how fair, free, and just our economy actually is.
What I propose is removing barriers to entry and other mechanisms of the state that cripple competition in the market, thus reducing productivity and everyone's standard of living.
I a
The ratio of CEO compensation to average worker compensation is now approximately 10 times its value in 1950. This is approximately commensurate with the average increase in the Dow average adjusted for inflation.
But why should CEOs receive the entire benefit of a growing economy when all actors have contributed to that growth? CEO compensation has no correlation with company performance.
As I see it, the problem has nothing to do with a free vs. a coerced market. The problem is that the market of executive compensation is entirely divorced from the market at large. "Stockholders... vote... for whatever the management recommends no matter how poor the management’s record of accomplishment may be". This is what I mean by oligarchy: a few privileged elites have control over this smaller market without the essential feedback cycles that stabilize prices in the larger economy.
The issue is that the market value of labor has plummeted in relation to productivity and in relation to the value of top earners. In the 50s one could work part time at a minimum wage job and pay rent and college tuition and walk away with a degree free and clear. Today, just to pay rent, one needs roommates or more than one part-time minimum-wage job, let alone any ability to pay for education in order to get a better job.
1950:
$0.75/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $750 wages
$42 * 12 months = $504 rent
$35 * 4 quarters = $140 tuition
2013:
$7.25/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $7250 wages
$602 * 12 months = $7224 rent
$3917 * 2 semesters = $7834 tuition
I believe that raising the average wage will have a better impact on the economy as a whole than raising executive compensation. I believe that income inequality is a social ill that should be addressed through policy -- not by Marxian state capture of the means of production and not through Randian private hoarding of the means of production, but through a hybrid realistic approach like "all employees should receive stock options or profit sharing if executives do".