Business and management. IT gets outsourced because, well, it's not that hard a skill compared to other professional degrees. If you want to make even $50K/y you had better convince your employer you are actually worth that much. And generally that means IT isn't enough. Have you considered an MBA?
I don't know about you, but if I lost 20% of my income that would be a pretty good incentive to do a better job.
Why are you against people making lots of money? I think you underestimate the responsibility these people have.
If you're not talking about CEOs then what 'rich' people are you talking about that are a) ridiculouly rich and b) are in no danger of losing that wealth for doing a poor job?
Give me a break. Pop music has always been shitty, it's pretty much engrained in the definition. Whether it's Michael Jackson, Justin Timberlake, MC Hammer, C+C music factory or whoever the quality of pop music has been steady.
In the genre I listen to the quality has been actually INCREASING, albeit none of them are RIAA bands.
How convenient that in your moralistic crusade to thwart the evil RIAA, you end up getting free music.
If you were really sincere about your ambitions you would not only boycott RIAA music, but not download their music which gives them legal amunition to sue people and pass laws by pointing out growing p2p statistics.
If you're talking about the US, then death-by-starvation is practically non-existant compared to say, obesity. For other countries that aren't as capitalist, then their poverty is often due to rich people taking their money (ie. corruption). But rich people in the states are not responbile for the plight of the poor in the US. If all the rich people were to quit their jobs and ship out, the poor would become even poorer.
f there is a mandatory minimum wage, and the job is necessary, and it takes 100 people to do the job, then 100 people will be employed at minimum wage rates. If there is no minimum wage, then these people will be paid 'what the market can bear', which might be very low.
Everything you said was correct except this. Employer's don't set wages arbitrarily, they too must pay competetive wages and what their business can afford. If they are only will to pay $3/h, and minimum wage law says you must pay $5/h, they will NOT simply shrug their shoulders and pay people the $5. More likely they will close their business or outsource it. If minimum wage law was instead $15/h, do you think McDonald's would just pay it, or do you think they would go quickly out of business?
Actually many CEOs do make less money if they make bad decisions. Much of their wealth is tied to the stock of the company, and when the stock falls, so does their wealth.
But you're right, it's hard to fire a CEO since he's, well, the fucking president. However he is still accountable to his consumers and the success of his business. It is in his best interest to make his business succeed. Failure of the business will mean failure for him.
Total bullshit. Are you going to tell me lawyers, doctors, and top managers just got 'lucky'? You may say, 'no but they had rich parents blah blah' but they still had to work their ass off to get into their respective schools. Advantaged? yes, but not lucky.
Finally your last point is irrelvant. It's not 'how hard' someone works, but how much their labor is worth. I would gladly pay that CEO 50 million a year if he could save my company over 50 million dollars in key decisions. Can that kid stocking shelves do that? Probably not.
Who cares whatt the relative increase is? Isn't it important that everyone is improving their lives? If you're making $10K more today than you were ten years ago does it matter if the richest person made $100 million rather than $1 million?
As for taxes, you are partly right. 'Rich' people that make over $200 000 (usually 50+, paying off a mortgage, retirement, and putting kids through college, hardly yacht-rich at all) pay enormous amounts of taxes, as much as 44%.
It's the ludicrously rich people, the Steve Jobbses of the world that aren't getting taxed that much, mostly because they've already accumulated hordes of wealth. You can't tax wealth you already have, just wealth that you will later accumulate.
And I'm afraid capitalism is working, at least against the alternatives. 'Wealthy' people by and large deserve every penny they make, with exceptions of course. Finally as CrhisMaple mentioned we have absolutely no right to tax anyone: income is not meant to be dispersed but earned.
Richer in terms of everything. In terms of absolute wages, in terms of standard of living, and in terms of real GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation). 'Poor' people today have more goods in their houses today than 20 years ago.
However they may not be richer in terms of the ratio of rich:poor. While the relative gap may be increasing, all are better off historically.
Yes, and by instituting minimum wage you are causing even more unemployment and more poverty. Lower wages are the only solution to the problem of massive unempoyment. Better low wage than no wage.
People decide how much they are worth. If no one wants to hire you for $5/h, then by what rationale are you economically 'worth' $4/h? You may be worth $4/h to you, to your friends, or on some metaphysical level, but that doesn't matter if no one wants to hire you. That's why the economic rationalist approach is appropriate, if not brash.
An employer can easily offer whatever wage they want, 'starvation level' or not. It seems unfair if someone voluntarily chooses to work at this wage, but you are making them no better off by not allowing the employment to take place at all.
Now you can argue that the employer would hire that person at minimum wage but instead is 'exploiting' them by offering a wage that is much less and they have to take it. In reality when there are thousands of different employers competition drives wages up. Ostensibly greedy employers that refuse to pay more will suffer. Otherwise wouldn't all jobs pay minimum wage?
Raising taxes against the rich often increases revenue very slightly, if it increases revenue at all. The problem is people do not like being taxed, and will leave the country if the burden is too much. This results in a net loss of tax revenue if enough people do it. Furthermore when you no longer are making anymore money with each subbsequent raise (due to moving up in tax brackets) what incentive do you have to strive for excellence?
Finally your last point is incorrect. The poor have been getting steadly richer, and the rich have been getting richer as well.
What reasonable person is willing to work for $4/hour aside from someone freshly here from Mexico or some similar place who doesn't know any better?
Teenagers. Minimum wage effects at least an order of magnitiude more teenagers than single moms with 4 kids.
It's unforunate that some people make more money than others, but every attempt to equalize wages has ended in monumental failure. Furthermore even if you were to redistribute the wages of the mulitmillionaires to the minimum wage employees it would scarcely amount to a significant amount.
Getting paid 'too much' doesn't really mean anything. Too much by your standards? What does that mean? CEOs make crucial decisions all the time, decisions that can result in millions gained or lost. They are worth every penny providing they do this job well. If they don't, they are the ones that suffer for it. (BTW I also disagee with bailing out business with government funds).
It's simple really. It is not the value of the argument that is important, but who you are attacking.
For instance, one can attack rich people ad inifinitum with no recourse or counter-claim. Poor people however are no man's land because they are 'poor' and can't possibly be to blame for their own circumstances. Rich people exploited them. Duh?
Re:Thanks, unions, government, and greedy employee
on
Train Your Own Replacement
·
· Score: 0, Informative
Actually minimum wage doesn't overvalue anyone. Anyone worth $5/h is paid an hour. These people would not make one penny more if there was no minimum wage law.
The big problem occurs when someone is worth $4/h, is willing to work $4/h, but it is illegal for him to do so. That is the argument against minimum wage. CEOs are not swimming in cash as you would purport. Some are, yes, and deservedly so. Being the president of a company is no small task. And while there are several people wealthy CEOs, there are many more failures.
I think I agree. One of the groups has to simply stop attacking the other, regardless of the transgressions from the opposing side. In this case I think a Ghandi-eque tactic would work.
Dear lord. People accuse of Sharon of being cruel, but nothing outmatches the sheer barbarism of terrorist groups. At least Sharon tries to attack military targets, and doesn't ask 14 years old to blow themselves to pieces by saying they'll go to heaven when they do.
Mute has been making some substantial gains. Even if it's not 100% bulletproof, it's still small enough that the RIAA doesn't bother with it when there are bigger fish to fry such as Kazaa and Mp2p.
Unforunately, like all big businesses, any government fines or restrictions will inevitably be passed on down to their consumers. But I have a feeling none of this 500 million slap-on-the-wrist will go anywhere near Microsoft consumers. Expect to see price hikes in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Business and management. IT gets outsourced because, well, it's not that hard a skill compared to other professional degrees. If you want to make even $50K/y you had better convince your employer you are actually worth that much. And generally that means IT isn't enough. Have you considered an MBA?
I don't know about you, but if I lost 20% of my income that would be a pretty good incentive to do a better job.
Why are you against people making lots of money? I think you underestimate the responsibility these people have.
If you're not talking about CEOs then what 'rich' people are you talking about that are a) ridiculouly rich and b) are in no danger of losing that wealth for doing a poor job?
Give me a break. Pop music has always been shitty, it's pretty much engrained in the definition. Whether it's Michael Jackson, Justin Timberlake, MC Hammer, C+C music factory or whoever the quality of pop music has been steady.
In the genre I listen to the quality has been actually INCREASING, albeit none of them are RIAA bands.
How convenient that in your moralistic crusade to thwart the evil RIAA, you end up getting free music.
If you were really sincere about your ambitions you would not only boycott RIAA music, but not download their music which gives them legal amunition to sue people and pass laws by pointing out growing p2p statistics.
If you're talking about the US, then death-by-starvation is practically non-existant compared to say, obesity. For other countries that aren't as capitalist, then their poverty is often due to rich people taking their money (ie. corruption). But rich people in the states are not responbile for the plight of the poor in the US. If all the rich people were to quit their jobs and ship out, the poor would become even poorer.
I don't buy it either, good post.
Everything you said was correct except this. Employer's don't set wages arbitrarily, they too must pay competetive wages and what their business can afford. If they are only will to pay $3/h, and minimum wage law says you must pay $5/h, they will NOT simply shrug their shoulders and pay people the $5. More likely they will close their business or outsource it. If minimum wage law was instead $15/h, do you think McDonald's would just pay it, or do you think they would go quickly out of business?
Actually many CEOs do make less money if they make bad decisions. Much of their wealth is tied to the stock of the company, and when the stock falls, so does their wealth.
But you're right, it's hard to fire a CEO since he's, well, the fucking president. However he is still accountable to his consumers and the success of his business. It is in his best interest to make his business succeed. Failure of the business will mean failure for him.
Total bullshit. Are you going to tell me lawyers, doctors, and top managers just got 'lucky'? You may say, 'no but they had rich parents blah blah' but they still had to work their ass off to get into their respective schools. Advantaged? yes, but not lucky.
Finally your last point is irrelvant. It's not 'how hard' someone works, but how much their labor is worth. I would gladly pay that CEO 50 million a year if he could save my company over 50 million dollars in key decisions. Can that kid stocking shelves do that? Probably not.
Who cares whatt the relative increase is? Isn't it important that everyone is improving their lives? If you're making $10K more today than you were ten years ago does it matter if the richest person made $100 million rather than $1 million?
As for taxes, you are partly right. 'Rich' people that make over $200 000 (usually 50+, paying off a mortgage, retirement, and putting kids through college, hardly yacht-rich at all) pay enormous amounts of taxes, as much as 44%.
It's the ludicrously rich people, the Steve Jobbses of the world that aren't getting taxed that much, mostly because they've already accumulated hordes of wealth. You can't tax wealth you already have, just wealth that you will later accumulate.
And I'm afraid capitalism is working, at least against the alternatives. 'Wealthy' people by and large deserve every penny they make, with exceptions of course. Finally as CrhisMaple mentioned we have absolutely no right to tax anyone: income is not meant to be dispersed but earned.
Richer in terms of everything. In terms of absolute wages, in terms of standard of living, and in terms of real GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation). 'Poor' people today have more goods in their houses today than 20 years ago.
However they may not be richer in terms of the ratio of rich:poor. While the relative gap may be increasing, all are better off historically.
Yes, and by instituting minimum wage you are causing even more unemployment and more poverty. Lower wages are the only solution to the problem of massive unempoyment. Better low wage than no wage.
People decide how much they are worth. If no one wants to hire you for $5/h, then by what rationale are you economically 'worth' $4/h? You may be worth $4/h to you, to your friends, or on some metaphysical level, but that doesn't matter if no one wants to hire you. That's why the economic rationalist approach is appropriate, if not brash.
An employer can easily offer whatever wage they want, 'starvation level' or not. It seems unfair if someone voluntarily chooses to work at this wage, but you are making them no better off by not allowing the employment to take place at all.
Now you can argue that the employer would hire that person at minimum wage but instead is 'exploiting' them by offering a wage that is much less and they have to take it. In reality when there are thousands of different employers competition drives wages up. Ostensibly greedy employers that refuse to pay more will suffer. Otherwise wouldn't all jobs pay minimum wage?
Raising taxes against the rich often increases revenue very slightly, if it increases revenue at all. The problem is people do not like being taxed, and will leave the country if the burden is too much. This results in a net loss of tax revenue if enough people do it. Furthermore when you no longer are making anymore money with each subbsequent raise (due to moving up in tax brackets) what incentive do you have to strive for excellence?
Finally your last point is incorrect. The poor have been getting steadly richer, and the rich have been getting richer as well.
Teenagers. Minimum wage effects at least an order of magnitiude more teenagers than single moms with 4 kids.
It's unforunate that some people make more money than others, but every attempt to equalize wages has ended in monumental failure. Furthermore even if you were to redistribute the wages of the mulitmillionaires to the minimum wage employees it would scarcely amount to a significant amount.
Getting paid 'too much' doesn't really mean anything. Too much by your standards? What does that mean? CEOs make crucial decisions all the time, decisions that can result in millions gained or lost. They are worth every penny providing they do this job well. If they don't, they are the ones that suffer for it. (BTW I also disagee with bailing out business with government funds).
It's always great to see slashdot accusing other people of pro-MS bias.
It's simple really. It is not the value of the argument that is important, but who you are attacking.
For instance, one can attack rich people ad inifinitum with no recourse or counter-claim. Poor people however are no man's land because they are 'poor' and can't possibly be to blame for their own circumstances. Rich people exploited them. Duh?
Actually minimum wage doesn't overvalue anyone. Anyone worth $5/h is paid an hour. These people would not make one penny more if there was no minimum wage law.
The big problem occurs when someone is worth $4/h, is willing to work $4/h, but it is illegal for him to do so. That is the argument against minimum wage.
CEOs are not swimming in cash as you would purport. Some are, yes, and deservedly so. Being the president of a company is no small task. And while there are several people wealthy CEOs, there are many more failures.
I believe it is your turn to get a clue.
If you weren't modded up fully as it was I'd give you more point. Oh well great post that expresses my sentiments exactly.
TRIES to attack military target. Show me evidence of Sharon saying "We were trying to kill civilians" and prove me wrong.
I think I agree. One of the groups has to simply stop attacking the other, regardless of the transgressions from the opposing side. In this case I think a Ghandi-eque tactic would work.
Dear lord. People accuse of Sharon of being cruel, but nothing outmatches the sheer barbarism of terrorist groups. At least Sharon tries to attack military targets, and doesn't ask 14 years old to blow themselves to pieces by saying they'll go to heaven when they do.
Mute has been making some substantial gains. Even if it's not 100% bulletproof, it's still small enough that the RIAA doesn't bother with it when there are bigger fish to fry such as Kazaa and Mp2p.
Unforunately, like all big businesses, any government fines or restrictions will inevitably be passed on down to their consumers. But I have a feeling none of this 500 million slap-on-the-wrist will go anywhere near Microsoft consumers. Expect to see price hikes in the future.
I doubt your sincerity. Do you have any idea how much stuff is made overseas?
If you really did all that, you're probably walking around naked and seeing 10 movies a week with all your unspent discretionary income.