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

The rich have always been willing to give a little to the poor and middle class in order to prevent a revolution. Their only concern is how little will they need to give this time.They are rich because they -- or their parents -- stole the profits from the workers who made it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

(1) read your history -- the real history, not the pap in school textbooks ... A People's History of the United States (2) perhaps you can tell me why one person's time is more valuable than another's? When someone works for you, every hour they spend means you do not have to spend that hour doing that work -- isn't the value the same whether you do it or someone else does it?Enjoy.

Curiously I notice that you did not answer my question ... I'll repeat it: And let me add: if the work is of equal value when you do it and when someone else does it and you pay them less than you pay yourself you are taking value from their work to put in your pocket. That is stealing in my book, unless there is a clear unambiguous reason for a difference in pay -- the only thing I see as justification is greed ...Now do you agree or not that land was taken from the indians by less than honorable means? I call that stealing as well. And when you look at how land was grabbed up by the wealthy and how laws favored landowners (original requirement to vote), there is no doubt in my mind that much was stolen from people because of the power disequilibrium.Enjoy.Enjoy

The business makes a profit, everyone shares in the success and everyone is engaged in working to make the business succeed. No, the profit is shared, and when people make more they spend more, this enables other businesses to grow, and that in turn means more people buying the products of the company, so profits increase.The economy is made by people spending money, by the movement of money, so the more the money moves the better the economy. Having some people hoard money takes it out of the system and makes the economy worse.We KNOW 'trickle down' (a) doesn't work and (b) is a rich man's wet dream because it causes more concentration of money in the pockets of the rich for no extra effort.It's time to try 'trickle up' ... IF you want a better economy ...Enjoy.

Consider it as a partnership rather than a feudal\overlord vs peasant\(wage)slave relationship. I see sweat equity as equal in value to investment equity -- both want the company to succeed, workers so they get (and keep) a job with a growing return on their investment just as investors want a return on their equity.There are many employee owned companies, there are many co-ops, and both show an alternative to the 'mini-kingdom' corporation model.Enjoy

Two questions:1: do you think any company that cannot pay a wage sufficient to live on for a full time (40 hour/week) job should be subsidized (directly or indirectly) to continue?2: can you tell me what makes an hour of one person's life more valuable than an hour of another person's life? ... using the medium of money to accomplish this, and we can measure the levels of exchanges in the amount of money exchanged for the products. The more money moves the more those exchanges occur, and the better the economy is. We know that 'pure' capitalism doesn't work that well -- cyclic binge and bust events.We also know that socialist democratic governments can temper capitalism so that every person has benefits and a place in the economy. Minimum wage, full healthcare, union protections, etc etc etc can work. Our current economy has not been stagnant due to insufficient supply of goods, but due to the inability of people to buy goods. That is a result of wage starvation\stagnation for the last 12+ years for middle-income and actual loss of comparable wages among the poor.People earning more in wages at these levels of the economy will spend virtually dollar for dollar, increasing the purchase of goods.This is reality, not "hippy-commune economics."Enjoy.

They have the choice to leave or stay. They have that choice, compared to being fired by the company. If they stay then they would\should expect a return on that investment once the company became profitable, yes? Is this not what you expect of an owner? If they have faith in the company being able to work their way out and start to produce a profit they can invest their time -- as long as there would be a fair return on investment in the future.Enjoy

I've known many owners to take a cut in pay, I also know of partnerships where the partners took a cut in pay.Are you saying that a person that continues to work for reduced pay is not taking risk on the company eventually succeeding? Certainly a worker that bails is just like an investor that bails, what is the difference? They decided to cut their losses vs risking more on the company. That would depend on whether there were a good potential for the business to eventually succeed and provide a return on their investment. So you are saying that the difference is the job, not the person ... so you fully support equal pay for work of equal value ...So now let them change jobs ...Enjoy

You forgot the second half of the question: now you switch the people doing the jobs -- who gets paid more and why?If the floor sweeper is fired because the company cannot afford the expense does the salesman sweep the floor at reduced wages?A buyer comes to visit the company, sees that the floor is unswept, dirty, trash is lying around and the whole place is shabby ... he decides not to buy.A buyer comes to visit the company, sees that the floor is neatly swept, polished, trash cans are empty with fresh liners and the whole place is neat and tidy ... he decides to buy.Is not the floor sweeper, responsible for the appearance of the company, a necessary part of getting that business?The salesman just happens to be there and take the order: what did he do to get that business? The worker leaves behind his investment in time, the investor leaves behind his investment in money -- I don't see any significant difference. By "cutting their losses" each is giving up on the potential future profits. So the worker that continues to work for reduced or negative pay is taking a risk on the company turning around and showing a future profit -- no different than the investor that puts more money into the company to help it turn around. Having shared the risk should they not share in that future profit?

Actually he did squat to get the job and just wrote down the order. That's the way it was presented to you, it seems to me that you are reading a different post than what I wrote. You're not getting it, and from the way you have responded in a general non-sequitur way by making up your own scenario to answer, I don't think you will get it.Enjoy.

Curiously what I see in your responses is your fantasy, and none of it has anything to do with the reality I have seen and know.So I see what the problem is with your responses now. Thanks for wasting my time on your nonsense.And I still have not seen any real reason for one hour of one persons life to be worth more than one hour of another persons life.If you are going to take an hour of some persons life and then say one hour of your life is worth less than one hour of mine because your job is of less value to me than mine, then you are being greedy and not appreciating\recognizing\respecting the value of not having to spend the hour yourself on the task you hire them for.The hour that the floor sweeper spends cleaning enables the salesman to spend that hour in making sales rather than sweeping the floor.It appears that you've been brainscrubbed by the standard capitalist teaching that rich people somehow deserve to be rich because of the value of their work ... and it's okay because you somehow deserve to be better off than someone working at a lower level, or the unemployed etc etc etc.Enjoy.