Defining/Determining "Living Wage"

[Rasmus]

So you put some people out of work to help a few others.

Yes.

But taxes are raised,

I have no problem paying taxes for people who do not have a job. I have a big problem paying taxes so people can profit from creating "jobs" that they themselves are unwilling or unable to pay for. I'd rather pay more to the people that need it directly, yes.

taking from you to pay those people who went out of work. But prices are higher and incomes are lower and now more people are struggling...

No, people are not struggling more if their income wasn't enough to live on to begin with.

This is what the welfare state does. It is the great fiction that everyone tries to live at everyone elses expense. (actually that is government in general )

Funny, the welfare state seems to be working here. It's certainly not ideal - but then, what is?

But fine, I find it morally wrong to force people out of their job at gun point and then to rob others at gun point to pay those who lost the job.

Tell that to business owners who supply "jobs" that aren't worth being done. And a job that, when youz do it for a day, doesn't pay you enough to live for that day simply isn't worth being done. Whoever does it is just losing time.

 

[Rasmus]

Yes,

Uh ... no. It is not *his* money.

It's not as if the entire system was idly working along, unaware of the taxes that will at some point be taken.

All prices, wages, etc. are adjusted to accommodate for that, and the taxes pay for the roads we use and other stuff we do benefit from.

 

[volatile]

Government instituted wealth redistribution... Government takes my money by force (via threat of imprisonment) and gives it to someone else who did not earn it.

Do you think you don't benefit from the things your tax money pays for? And do you think you'd be able to afford them all were it necessary to pay up-front yourself?

 

[leftysergeant]

Libertarians think that they create their own wealth, and that all the money in the till is theirs, and they have no utilitty bills left to pay.

First of all, capital does not create wealth. Capital just manages it, and damned poorly, to judge by today's outcome.

Labor, resources and infrastructure create wealth.

Government manages resources, labor and infrastructure for the benefit of all. Government is a utility. Until you have paid your utility bill, you have no money you can call your own.

 

[drkitten]

And what if that person is contributing 300 times the output of the average worker -- in befitting the company and society?

Then they're still ahead of the game. Taxation is incremental.

If they contribute 200 times the output of the average worker, they get paid 200 times the average worker's salary. If they contribute 300 times the output of the average worker, they will get paid maybe 210 times the average worker's salary.

The worker will need to decide for themselves whether the extra 100x work is worth the extra 10x pay. Surveys that have been done among CEOs suggest that it is; at that level, money per se is no longer a motivator except as a way of keeping score.

 

[Piscivore]

Government instituted wealth redistribution... Government takes my money by force (via threat of imprisonment) and gives it to someone else who did not earn it.

Um.. no. What was the name of the person who was "force[ed] out of their job at gun point"?

What was the name of the person who was "robbed at gun point" by "The Government" to pay those who were "force[ed] out of their job at gun point".

It doesn't matter how dramatic or hyperbolic you make your fantastic emotional appeals to fear, it does not make them the slightest bit more factual.

 

[drkitten]

If you mean that no one is good at math because it is all relative, then you are indeed correct.

No, I mean that no one is good at math because no one is good at math.

Let me make a few assumptions:
1) Everybody dies.
2) Death always has a scientific cause
3) Living is the state of not dying

This means that everybody must enter a dying state. If a living wage is the wage that can keep a person from entering a dying state, it must not exist since that person will eventually die.

Ah, so now we get to the "argument by misleadingly equivocating definititions."

Fortunately, no one except you has suggested such a stupid definition. Even the opening post provided a better definition -- "a day's provisions." We know how much food (and how much nutrition) it takes to keep a person alive; the fact that they might die from being hit by a bus doesn't affect their nutritional requirements.

And once again we see that lightfire can't argue except with straw men of his own imagination.

 

[Just thinking]

Then they're still ahead of the game. Taxation is incremental.

Ahead? ... of what? That they've achieved some standard of living that someone else (you) feels is a maximum to which they're entitled? Why not let their output be the deciding factor of that?

If they contribute 200 times the output of the average worker, they get paid 200 times the average worker's salary. If they contribute 300 times the output of the average worker, they will get paid maybe 210 times the average worker's salary.

They will automatically pay more by the sheer amount of increased income. When is enough ever enough with taxes? You are quick to limit their income, but godforbid you limit their tax rate. I call that outright hypocrisy.

The worker will need to decide for themselves whether the extra 100x work is worth the extra 10x pay. Surveys that have been done among CEOs suggest that it is; at that level, money per se is no longer a motivator except as a way of keeping score.

I can't think of a better way to put a cap on productivity.

 

[drkitten]

I can't think of a better way to put a cap on productivity.

Then you're not thinking hard enough.

Among other things, the people to whom this have applied have largely agreed that it wouldn't put a cap on productivity because they don't need the money they're earning anyway.

If you wanted to put a cap on productivity, you should be able to come up with dozens of methods. Shoot the high performers, for example. Provide positive incentive to produce less, instead of merely weakened incentive to produce more. Et cetera.

There's a world full of possibilities. Your lack of imagination doesn't limit them.

 

[Beth]

And they are paid a compensating wage giving them a comfortable living. No sacrifice or investment without compensation. Sorry, this is in no way commensurate to what the owner of the corporation does.

Um..isn't this whole discussion about whether or not a compensating wage should be a living wage? Which I presume is not as good as one that provides a "comfortable living"?

 

[Just thinking]

Then you're not thinking hard enough.

Among other things, the people to whom this have applied have largely agreed that it wouldn't put a cap on productivity because they don't need the money they're earning anyway.

Now look who's not thinking hard enough. The more money he keeps, the more he can either invest (to produce wealth, jobs, company growth, purchases ... the list goes on and on) or spend. Either way, it increases overall wealth and productivity for many. Take that away and replace it with government re-distribution and you will help people get by ... but how many on government assistance can afford a Corvette? ... or a home with a swimming pool? ... or a private airplane? Just from those examples alone, how many people do you think that employs to a level well beyond government assistance?

If you wanted to put a cap on productivity, you should be able to come up with dozens of methods. Shoot the high performers, for example. Provide positive incentive to produce less, instead of merely weakened incentive to produce more. Et cetera.

If examples like these are what you need to support your position, you are in serious need of help.

There's a world full of possibilities. Your lack of imagination doesn't limit them.

I hope your imaginative ideas never see the light of day.

 

[drkitten]

They will automatically pay more by the sheer amount of increased income. When is enough ever enough with taxes? You are quick to limit their income, but godforbid you limit their tax rate. I call that outright hypocrisy.

I call it outright wrong.

There's an implicit limit of 100% on the marginal tax rate.

Income is not limited at all.

 

[Just thinking]

Um..isn't this whole discussion about whether or not a compensating wage should be a living wage? Which I presume is not as good as one that provides a "comfortable living"?

I'm debating off on a tanget ... sorry. You're correct, though, the two are not usually the same thing.

 

[drkitten]

Now look who's not thinking hard enough.

The CEOs who were surveyed, I suppose.

The more money he keeps, the more he can either invest (to produce wealth, jobs, company growth, purchases ... the list goes on and on) or spend.

But they don't want to. The additional personal pleasure they get from the extra money simply isn't a major motivating factor. Most of their personal pleasure they seem to get simply by being able to say that they're wealthier than the other people in their crowd, a pleasure they'd get with an extra hundred dollars or hundred million.

 

[Just thinking]

I call it outright wrong.

There's an implicit limit of 100% on the marginal tax rate.

Income is not limited at all.

At an implicit limit of 100% ... you're talking cents on the dollar. That's not taxation, that's outright theft.

 

[Just thinking]

But they don't want to. The additional personal pleasure they get from the extra money simply isn't a major motivating factor. Most of their personal pleasure they seem to get simply by being able to say that they're wealthier than the other people in their crowd, a pleasure they'd get with an extra hundred dollars or hundred million.

What??? ... they stuff it in their mattress? It gets invested one way or another.

 

[drkitten]

What??? ... they stuff it in their mattress?

No. They invest it.

But they'd do just as hard a job and be just as productive if they had a lot less stuff to invest.

Neither motivation nor production is proportional to reward. If you'd do a job for $50, you won't necessarily do a better job for $100.

The CEO who is 300 times as productive as his average employee doesn't need 300x as much money to keep him happily at his desk. He just needs more money than the person who is only 250x as productive as the average employee, so that he can swank his superiority about.

 

[drkitten]

At an implicit limit of 100% ... you're talking cents on the dollar.

Yes.

That's not taxation, that's outright theft.

No.

 

[Patrick_R]

Um.. no. What was the name of the person who was "force[ed] out of their job at gun point"?

What was the name of the person who was "robbed at gun point" by "The Government" to pay those who were "force[ed] out of their job at gun point".

It doesn't matter how dramatic or hyperbolic you make your fantastic emotional appeals to fear, it does not make them the slightest bit more factual.

Does that mean you have to name the people who get a welfare check in order for me to believe a welfare program exists?

 

[Just thinking]

No. They invest it.

And that creates jobs and increases wealth for more than just the investor. That's exactly what I've been arguing all along.

But they'd do just as hard a job and be just as productive if they had a lot less stuff to invest.

No way. If more gets invested, more jobs get created from those investments. Money doesn't make money by just sitting around doing nothing.

Neither motivation nor production is proportional to reward. If you'd do a job for $50, you won't necessarily do a better job for $100.

One would be much more inclined to keep a job if it paid well as compared to one that paid poorly. To better keep that job he would work better at it ... that's just common sense.

The CEO who is 300 times as productive as his average employee doesn't need 300x as much money to keep him happily at his desk.

So, it's from each his ability and to each his needs? Who are you (or anyone for that matter) to decide what's enough for someone to keep? Or even the government for that matter.

He just needs more money than the person who is only 250x as productive as the average employee, so that he can swank his superiority about.

Personally ... I don't give a rat's rear end what he does with HIS earned income. As long as I get to keep mine. I find intrusion into that level of personal endeavor disgusting.