Raise Minimum Wage? Progressive Taxes? Let the Rich Decide!

No, he works smarter.

Trump has been smarter than Dillinger in the fact that he didn't get himself killed by the cops at age 31.

No, her great-grandfather did.Why shouldn't he be allowed to do with his money what he wants to? Including passing it on to his children, and his children's children?One of the motivations for me to work hard is knowing that I can provide a good life to my children.Why should that be removed from me?

In your way, how would your business ever expand?Every time it grows, all that extra money goes out the window.

Oh, that's a little different than what you were talking about before...But okay, so does everyone share in the risk too?When the business's profits decline, does the workers' pay decline as well?When the business goes into the red, and profit becomes negative, do the workers then pay to work?What about when a new company starts, and overhead outweighs income, do the newly hired workers have to invest money into the company in order to get the job? Or do they just start out with a negative wage and pay into the company until it gets profitable?Or do the workers just not share the risk at all? The people investing in the company take all the risk, and then they give all the reward away just because they feel like being nice? Why wouldn't they just not take the risk in the first place?

I don't know, how many? Its way easier to make money, when you have money.I'd say taking advantage of the system is a smart way to go about it.But I have no intention of defending Trump, I'm sure he's some kind of crook.

Okay, do the partners share in the risk at all?When the company doesn't make a profit, do the partners stop taking a wage for thier work?When the company goes into the red, and there is negative profit, do the partners take a negative wage and start paying the company for the work they've done?Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

Well that's just smart business sense.I've got a buddy who is in the process of starting up a new business right now. He actually started three new companies if I remember correctly.One is just a holding company. It owns the private property as well as the building.Then there's the actual business. That company will then rent the building from the other company.That way, if the business ever gets sued then they cannot go after any of the property... because its owned by another company. Genius!

Is that a "no"?I mean, are you saying that when the business is profitable, they get to partake in the rewards, but then when the business is losing money, they can just leave and not partake in the risk?How is that fair? Sure.But we have a hard enough time getting people to show up for work when we're paying them. I can't imagine how hard it would be to get them to show up for work when we're not No, the owner still gets his salary when the company goes into the red. What is at risk is all the money that he invested into the company to get it started.In your situation, the owner still takes all that risk, but then he gives the reward away. I'm saying that if you want people to partake in that reward, then they are going to have to partake in the risk as well. I don't see where you've accounted for that. You really think people are going to show up for work and not get paid for it? That's crazy.ABE: From a business perspective, its how much it impacts the bottom line.The salesmen that brings in 10 million dollars of business from an hours worth of work is worth way more than the guy who swept the floor for an hour the second time that day.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

No, I'd say that taking a cut in pay is partaking in the risk. Especially when that cut takes you into the negative. A worker can just clock out and go home but an investor can not just take their money and leave. Yup, and since the floor sweeper is hardly providing a value he doesn't get much pay.

We have a manufacturing plant. The kinds of jobs I'm talking about are things like stacking boxes.KPI's are pretty lacking in that field.And if people won't show up for work, I'm not sure what the hiring manager can do about it other than just hire someone else.

Yeah, its nothing like that here. But your point is not lost.

The salesjob is based on performance, so as long as the guy is making sales then he will get the same pay.And the pay for floor sweeping is set, so it doesn't matter who does it - they all get the same pay. The salesman doesn't even live in this state. He's regional.And their pay is based on commission, so it doesn't matter how much money the company has at the moment. Customers aren't allowed in the plant.The office is cleaned by a third party contractor - our hourly employees weren't doing a good enough job so we had to farm it out. They don't even see what the floor sweeper does, and what they do see is not done by the floor sweeper. He acquired the business by convincing the distributor to go with our products.This required not only extensive knowledge of our product line, but they have to be aware of potential distributors that can take on our products.The floor sweeper simply lacks that knowledge and awareness - of course they could be trained, but we hire salesmen that can already do their job. And we pay them based on performance. Well for one: money is tangible and time is not.I can hand you a dollar but I cannot hand you an hour.That's one of the reasons people use their hours to earn dollars. But the investor's money is already spent - the potential is had.The worker still needs to show up and work for the potential to be had. Sure, but there's no way we can fill the plant with workers that aren't getting paid. They have bills to pay.And what would you say to workers who reject your option, and just want to get paid for the work they've done and go home?What if I can find more workers who want to do it my way than who want to do it your way? I don't have a problem with sharing the profit.But you have to share the risk as well. And people just aren't willing to do that by working for free.

Oh, yeah, I wasn't describing a hypothetical situation. I'm wondering how your proposal might work in a real world scenario.I don't doubt that you can create fantasies where it works. I prefer my reality to your fantasy. If your proposal only works in your own fantasies, then yeah, I don't see the point in wasting time discussing it.

The only part that might have been off is that the salesman worked for just an hour. But its hard to nail down sales time, isn't it?I mean, 3 20-minute phone calls is an hour, but what about that time I spent at home in bed thinking about the best strategy for the next calls?Or what about when I'm buying the potential customer drinks at the bar after work (on the company dime of course)? Does that even count as work? Hell, I got a free meal out of it.The floor sweeper doesn't even get a cracker. How's that for not fair? From a business perspective, the difference is in how much they contribute to the bottom line. Everybody contributes a different amount. No person's hour is worth exactly the same as another. Sometimes its pretty hard to figure out a good wage for a position.How do you go about doing it?And what do you do with gross performance differences between individuals when you see everyone as being worth the same? Is that really your only point? That people who make more money are greedy? I don't agree at all. He can still go sell even when the floors aren't swept. One of my good friends in high school stayed home and partied while I went away to college. I worked my ass off and it was expensive, but I learned a hell of a lot and emerged a better person. I've got a good job with a decent salary and he is delivering pizzas. I make way more money than he does. Its not because of greed, its because I chose a different path.You still gotta play the hand you're dealt, but you have a direct impact on how much money that hand can make you. Its not always greed that drives people to improve their lives. Why are you trying to make it out that way?