A maximum wage?

Should we have a maximum wage? yes

  • yes

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • no

    Votes: 14 63.6%

  • Total voters
    22

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,422
here
Should we have a maximum wage? What should the amount be?

I say no. As long as someone is paying their fair share in taxes, I don't see a reason to limit the amount of money they can make. I might be open to a higher tax rate for these folks.
 

Jake10

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
11,960
Canada
Have you seen some of the salaries of CEOs? It's a competition among them to some degree.

Hong Kong has a salary cap in some professions, and it works well. People can still further their education and try to improve their qualifications, but it will only gain them more chances of landing another job. It won't get them more money until the cap goes up, which happens in accordance to inflation.

And, let's keep in mind that money only motivates people up to a certain point, as shown in the video below. When people start making enough to cover their needs, they start to seek other forms of reward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,422
here
Have you seen some of the salaries of CEOs? It's a competition among them to some degree.

Hong Kong has a salary cap in some professions, and it works well. People can still further their education and try to improve their qualifications, but it will only gain them more chances of landing another job. It won't get them more money until the cap goes up, which happens in accordance to inflation.

And, let's keep in mind that money only motivates people up to a certain point, as shown in the video below. When people start making enough to cover their needs, they start to seek other forms of reward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Yes, those CEOs make ridiculous amounts of money. So do baseball players. Society and the fans and customers of these people, make their wages possible. I don't watch baseball, nor do I attend games, or buy merchandise. So, I'm not concerned with how much they make, as long as I'm not paying for it.
 

Jake10

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
11,960
Canada
The thing is, even if you're not attending the games nor paying for the merchandise they endorse, such wages still affect you. The reason being that sections of society are not independent. Every section is directly or indirectly linked to another. So, while baseball players making 10 million a year may seem distant, the fact that the industry needs to spend so much on that and does not invest in other sectors eventually comes back to you. Even if it does no come back to you economically, it will socially. Societies with the biggest gaps in equality end up with more psychological problems. The don't haves become depressed, and anxiety sets in. Meanwhile, the haves become overprotective and narcissistic.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that we become less nice people in more unequal societies. But we are less nice and less happy: Greater inequality redoubles status anxiety, damaging our mental health and distorting our personalities — wherever we are on the social spectrum.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/how-inequality-hollows-out-the-soul/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=edit_tnt_20140203&tntemail0=y&_r=2
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
I think Jake's position on the highly interconnected character of the modern economy is largely correct. And he doesn't even bring up one of the most dangerous elements of severe income inequality: political influence. The modern American political system runs on bribes. Others earning immensely more than you means they will have influence and you will not. That influence is often used to "rig the game" in order to ensure their future dominance. There's a reason Mickey Mouse is never going to be out of copyright for example, and it's got nothing to do with the original intention behind copyright laws. So long as money = political influence = more money remains true, excessive income inequality is a real concern.
 

bartieboy

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,616
The Netherlands
Yes, those CEOs make ridiculous amounts of money. So do baseball players. Society and the fans and customers of these people, make their wages possible. I don't watch baseball, nor do I attend games, or buy merchandise. So, I'm not concerned with how much they make, as long as I'm not paying for it.
It should punish itself if people give themselves to high wages.
Now I can understand CEO wages up to a certain measure.
What I can not understand is the wages of professional sports players.
In my opinion these people hardly deserve to earn this much.
Worse thing of all is that when they are to old these people start showing up on talk shows and suddenly think everybody cares about their opinions.
 

Jake10

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
11,960
Canada
It should punish itself if people give themselves to high wages.
Now I can understand CEO wages up to a certain measure.
What I can not understand is the wages of professional sports players.
In my opinion these people hardly deserve to earn this much.
Worse thing of all is that when they are to old these people start showing up on talk shows and suddenly think everybody cares about their opinions.
A lot of that has to do with the 'halo effect'. It is a strange phenomenon that people associate characteristics they like in an individual with that individual knowing more. The biggest reason endorsements work is is linked to this.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect]Halo effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 

Edratman

Forum Staff
Feb 2009
6,714
Eastern PA
The key element in this discussion is the term "wage'.

To my thinking, if a person earns a "wage", they are employed by either someone or some entity. A separate category is required to define someone who creates a business or something along those lines. The second category does not include those who purchase something and are termed "owner". "Owner" is not the same as "creator".

So I think that any who works for a public company must have a compensation package in excess of $1 mil be approved each year at the annual stock holders meeting.

All privately owned companies are free to pay employees whatever they want.
 

Jake10

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
11,960
Canada
The key element in this discussion is the term "wage'.

To my thinking, if a person earns a "wage", they are employed by either someone or some entity. A separate category is required to define someone who creates a business or something along those lines. The second category does not include those who purchase something and are termed "owner". "Owner" is not the same as "creator".

So I think that any who works for a public company must have a compensation package in excess of $1 mil be approved each year at the annual stock holders meeting.

All privately owned companies are free to pay employees whatever they want.
Nobody is disputing the legality of that. What is in question is the effects that it has on society overall. Sure, a free capitalistic philosophy indicates that a businessperson can pay whatever he/she wants, but if such practices are resulting in larger income gaps, psychological problems, and political biases, then it is logical for the practice to be put to a democratic vote, and the arguments to validate the vote need to be posted.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,422
here
Nobody is disputing the legality of that. What is in question is the effects that it has on society overall. Sure, a free capitalistic philosophy indicates that a businessperson can pay whatever he/she wants, but if such practices are resulting in larger income gaps, psychological problems, and political biases, then it is logical for the practice to be put to a democratic vote, and the arguments to validate the vote need to be posted.
Sounds like a case of protecting people from themselves. Let's limit the amount of sugar each person can consume on a daily basis. Let's ban cigarettes too.