Originally Posted by
Musourenka
First, I don't think Congress should even have a salary, nor should any politician. Having the ability to increase their salary at the expense of everyone else via taxes is wrong.
Taxes don't really have anything to do with it. My point is that if they can increase their sallaries as inflation goes up, why not minimum wage as well?
Second, supply and demand; more costly labor, less labor hours (and less work done).
You don't seem to realize how much extra cash these people are riding off with. There is PLENTY of extra money in the system to pay workers, and still leave the CEO living comfortably for the rest of their life.
Thirdly, do you know what inflation is?
Of course I do. What would make you think otherwise? The fact that my philosophy on these issues clashes with yours?
Why should CEOs be limited to a certain amount? Why should there be a ceiling on wages? They make a lot of money? Again, so what?
They make a lot of money, and their workers make barely enough to scrape by, forcing them to take up second jobs, and thereby reducing their efficiency.
The effects of your proposed ceiling would be enormous. There will be less CEOs and less people taking the high skill/high risk jobs because it would no longer be worth it for them.
I beg to differ. You act as if the only jobs that are high skill/risk are those of CEOs. It's still better than working on a factory line. European companies have gotten by fine with the CEOs only making around 24 times more than the average employee. Btw, fun fact - the average american CEO makes several HUNDRED times more than their employees.
The results would be massive business closures and massive unemployment. Innovation in technology? Almost nil; it's now too costly. Same with medicine, doctors, etc.
You seem to think of this only one way - CEOs are tied down by their workers' wages. Instead, the employees could be buoyed up by their employer's wages. The more you pay your workers = the more you get paid yourself. Everybody wins. It doesn't leave room for monopolies like Wal-Mart to take root, but then again, do we really need stores that make more than most of the world's countries?
Yes, it makes sense to pay your workers a decent amount.
Sadly, most employers don't.
Most businesses understand this and do just that.
We must be seeng different things here. Define "Decent amount".
However, I have an issue with your Keynesian outlook on Henry Ford. Ford did well because he correctly predicted that it would be less costly to have dedicated employees at fairly high wages than to have lower wages and high employee turnover. "Buying back the product" had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The point is that he would have HAD to pay them excellent wages for them to be able to buy the product back. It's just a roundabout way of getting to the same conclusion.
It was all benefit versus cost.
Note that Ford used Efficiency Wages; Minimum Wages are not Efficiency Wages at all.
Then say good-bye to the only chance that third-world countries have at this point, due to global politics and horrid leaders of those countries.
You realize that the influence of global corporations is MORE likely to keep these leaders in power? That banning companies from doing anything their could and probably would motivate the countries' leaders to change their practices, so that the companies can return?
It may seem like a hell-hole, but without some of that outsourcing to other countries, they'd be even worse off.
Without these countries, the corporations couldn't make the mind-boggling killing they do, and they know it. That's why it's in their best interests to keep dictators/human rights abusers in power.
As for public education, I say axe it.
Meaning that only the rich could get their children educated, and the poor just remain in poverty, ignorant and powerless.
Children are taught, purposely, not to think.
Where do you get this from?
Hell, I learned more from the real world, the workplace, the college library, and the internet than I ever learned in school.
Here's the thing; The only reason you had ACCESS to those resources was because your parents could afford to send you to college, get you an internet connection, etc. Ignorance is at the core of poverty. Why do you think it was illegal for blacks to learn to read or write in the south before the civil war? because the aristocracy knew knowledge = power.
There's no point in trying to fix something that's flawed from its very core.
The thing is, it's not.
The only problem is that the most evil people in the world were smart.
Ignorance breeds hatred. I'd rather take my chances with someone who's intelligent than someone who's clueless as to what they're supposed to be doing.
Btw, Einstein, Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, and Socrates were all smart. Brains =/= evil.