·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Soda for Food Stamps
Soda for Food StampsFollow
You are all bumping into one of the many extremely good reasons that your first degree (or other tertiary training) should be free. And if you are made redundant, why you should be able to receive a second tertiary training of some sort free.
Quote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer? No? Then "equalizing pay" is the wrong objective.
You are absolutely correct. The guy making fries deserves much more than somebody trying to cure cancer. If I want fries now, I can get them. If I want my cancer cured, I get told "not yet, come back later". So obviously one guy is producing and the other isn't.
Freedom Fries.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
xantav wrote:
Quote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer? No? Then "equalizing pay" is the wrong objective.
You are absolutely correct. The guy making fries deserves much more than somebody trying to cure cancer. If I want fries now, I can get them. If I want my cancer cured, I get told "not yet, come back later". So obviously one guy is producing and the other isn't.
Pffttt, whatever. We cure cancer everyday.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Aripyanfar wrote:
You are all bumping into one of the many extremely good reasons that your first degree (or other tertiary training) should be free. And if you are made redundant, why you should be able to receive a second tertiary training of some sort free.
Unfortunately, the American dream of success is contingent on having people below you to step upon on your way up. If everyone is given the same opportunities for success, how else would we have an exorbitant amount of fast food employees to lord our superiority over as they serve us our coronaries wrapped in waxed paper? Why else do I slave 40+ hours a week in a tiny room in front of a computer but for the health insurance to keep my family afloat in case of crisis? It could always be worse. I could be a slave filling the food troughs for more superior humans.
Unfortunately, the American dream of success is contingent on having people below you to step upon on your way up. If everyone is given the same opportunities for success, how else would we have an exorbitant amount of fast food employees to lord our superiority over as they serve us our coronaries wrapped in waxed paper? Why else do I slave 40+ hours a week in a tiny room in front of a computer but for the health insurance to keep my family afloat in case of crisis? It could always be worse. I could be a slave filling the food troughs for more superior humans.
That's surprisingly accurate.
That's surprisingly accurate.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#433gbaji,
Posted: Jan 29 2013 at 5:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Unfortunately, a good portion of the labor and "equal pay" arguments are based on the concept that an hours worth of labor should be worth the same regardless of what is actually accomplished in that hour. When people argue that it's unfair that the guy working the assembly line makes so much less than the CEO of the company they are making this exact argument. Yes, it is absurd, but there are an alarming number of people who believe it, and an unfortunately even larger number of people who don't recognize what exactly they're actually arguing for (cause they hide it behind vague claims about "fairness" and "equality" and whatnot) and buy those arguments instead of being skeptical about them.
gbaji wrote:
Unfortunately, a good portion of the labor and "equal pay" arguments are based on the concept that an hours worth of labor should be worth the same regardless of what is actually accomplished in that hour. When people argue that it's unfair that the guy working the assembly line makes so much less than the CEO of the company they are making this exact argument.
Yeah, no.
gbaji wrote:
When people argue that it's unfair that the guy working the assembly line makes so much less than the CEO of the company they are making this exact argument.
No, they aren't. Thinking that it's ridiculous for an average CEO to make 380+ times the wage of the lowest paid workers in their company is not the same as thinking that all workers should get paid the same. In 1980 the average CEO made roughly 42 times the salary of the lowest paid worker on average. Suggesting that today's ratio is out of whack is not the same as suggesting everyone should get paid the same. Given that average salaries have not kept pace with inflation it's entirely reasonable to question why CEO pay continues to skyrocket.
You're conflating two entirely different arguments.
Edited, Jan 29th 2013 4:38pm by Olorinus
While looking up the gap I found this cute little article from raging socialists the chartered accountants association of Canada:
I thought it was cute. Even the math geeks think it's out of whack.
Quote:
Despite a zero return for investors, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott has been receiving US$9 million a year for the past six years. His case is typical and is justified by studies comparing his compensation with that of his peers. But did someone on the Wal-Mart board compare his compensation with that of the average Wal-Mart employee? Of course not. Is Scott’s work worth that of 400 line workers? Who can say?
In Europe, business leaders are paid far less: 30 to 40 times the average employee’s salary. Despite this lower CEO pay, the performance of European companies is comparable to that of North American companies.
In Europe, business leaders are paid far less: 30 to 40 times the average employee’s salary. Despite this lower CEO pay, the performance of European companies is comparable to that of North American companies.
Quote:
By rewarding CEOs too generously, companies contribute to cutting them off from reality and feed the myth of the imperial CEO. Greater equality within the senior management team would lead to more solidarity and cohesion in large companies.
I thought it was cute. Even the math geeks think it's out of whack.
#437gbaji,
Posted: Jan 29 2013 at 7:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. I'm showing you how those arguments are similar. Assuming, of course, that you aren't just complaining about CEO salaries for the sake of complaining, and actually expect something to be done about it, then you are arguing *for* some non-market based method of determining relative pay. Even if that's not your intent, you lend support to such things by parroting how bad such inequities are. What do you think this accomplishes? It's entirely about trying to argue for a command methodology to determine cost/pay rather than a market one. In that way, both arguments are for the same thing. The scale and specific application are different, but the thinking behind them are the same.
No, it's not. But the argument being used to justify both positions is the same one. You're arguing based on how hard the persons job appears to be, and not much much value the person provides for those who pay their salaries. Given that the company's board of directors decides how much salary the CEO will be paid, and it's their money on the line, how the hell can you just eyeball that they've decided to pay that CEO 380 times more than the guy cleaning the toilets and assume that there's something unfair going on?
Well there is the small fact that most boards are populated by CEOs of other companies, and guess who sits on their boards? They guy they're determining compensation for. Executive compensation is horribly, horribly, broken in the US. It's not a secret. Most CEOs have little to no positive impact on profits, although, of course, a bad one can destroy a company fairly quickly. Coin flips on big decisions would have far better outcomes for most companies, but of course, coins rarely get CNBC interviews and the like.
Well there is the small fact that most boards are populated by CEOs of other companies, and guess who sits on their boards? They guy they're determining compensation for. Executive compensation is horribly, horribly, broken in the US. It's not a secret. Most CEOs have little to no positive impact on profits, although, of course, a bad one can destroy a company fairly quickly. Coin flips on big decisions would have far better outcomes for most companies, but of course, coins rarely get CNBC interviews and the like.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant? Because when you diametrically oppose your other positions it's hard to keep track.
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant? Because when you diametrically oppose your other positions it's hard to keep track.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#441gbaji,
Posted: Jan 30 2013 at 6:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, they can. Which makes one wonder why those with the most to lose would intentionally choose to increase their odds of losing money. Even though we tend to look at those CEO salaries as huge, they are peanuts compared to the potential gains/losses to those sitting on those boards. Even if what you claimed was true (which it isn't), the idea that 5 guys would each be CEO of one company, earning a 10 million dollar salary and sit on the boards of the companies CEO'd by the other four, paying them the same salary, and that this would in any way benefit them is ridiculous. They'd each lose vastly more money than they'd gain doing this. A large publicly traded company might have 10 billion dollars in outstanding shares. The board would represent a majority of those shares. Why on earth would any one of them (much less a majority which would have to make the decision) risk that volume of cash in order to get a 10 million dollar a year salary, doubly so when gains on their shares are capital gains, while the salary is income and taxed higher?
#442gbaji,
Posted: Jan 30 2013 at 6:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Did you buy the TV at the price they asked for? If you did, then that was a fair price. If you didn't then you weren't the one paying for it. It's like magic!
Smasharoo wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant?
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant?
No, it's not. I'm talking about one aspect of economics, not "economies" as a whole. And the phrase "demand based" is far too broad. But good try!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
Smasharoo wrote:
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant?
No, it's not. I'm talking about one aspect of economics, not "economies" as a whole. And the phrase "demand based" is far too broad. But good try!
So you're really saying that the person paying for something should only get to be the one who decides how much its worth when its not inconvenient for your other economic philosophies?
Hypocrite.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Quote:
Um... Boards of Directors are made up of those investors (or their proxies) in the corporation with the highest collective controlling shares of the company. That's why they get to make such decisions. Now, if they want to waste 10 million dollars paying an incompetent friend of theirs a massive salary, also ensuring that the company does less well than it would otherwise, then that's their money to waste.
But wait I thought pay was representative of the value of your labor??...you mean all this time having rich friends can land you a sweet gig almost like being born with a silver spoon in hand or something.
Edited, Jan 31st 2013 2:53am by rdmcandie
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
Smasharoo wrote:
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant?
No, it's not. I'm talking about one aspect of economics, not "economies" as a whole. And the phrase "demand based" is far too broad. But good try!
So you're really saying that the person paying for something should only get to be the one who decides how much its worth when its not inconvenient for your other economic philosophies?
Hypocrite.
Of course he's a hypocrite. In the other thread, he said that tips were mandated and not at the choice of the customer. I argued that the customer pays a tip based on the value of a waiter's service, not some default rate. Now he's saying that the person who's paying for something decides on how much something is worth, which is exactly what I said.
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Smasharoo wrote:
Unequivocally yes, assuming they do as much work. Labor is the only thing with real value. Everything else is a corruption of that designed to move wealth to a small segment of the population.
There were a few responses to this comment, all equally as cringe-worthy. You're paying people for caloric expenditure, regardless of results. You can't have an economy composed solely of people alternatively assembling and disassembling the same car.
Omegavegeta wrote:
So you're really saying that the person paying for something should only get to be the one who decides how much its worth when its not inconvenient for your other economic philosophies?
Nope. I'm saying that the person paying should always be the one to decide if the thing is worth the asking price to him. He doesn't get to declare the worth of something for everyone on the planet (otherwise, how do we decide gets this magical power over everyone else?). Just how much he's willing to pay. And he does this by deciding whether to buy that thing or not. If the price is too high, he wont buy it.
Collectively, the potential buyers of a good or service will influence the prices because the seller wants to sell it and thus must attempt to find a price at which people will buy. But this isn't determined by fiat. Each individual makes his own decision about the relative cost of something versus his own perceived value of that thing. No one person gets to make the determination for everyone, just for himself. That's the whole point of a free market. No one commands the prices. The market does.
This is a very basic economic concept. Are you really unaware of it, or just playing?
Edited, Feb 4th 2013 1:57pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I'm saying that the person paying should always be the one to decide if the thing is worth the asking price to him.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 163
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (163)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Soda for Food Stamps
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC