|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wealth Distribution in the USA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Tangle writes:
...accompanied by a considerable drop in crime. Coincidentally, I just heard the happiest countries have the least disparity between the top and bottom incomes. Let's all move to Iceland!"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
FEY writes:
Well, in Iceland there doesn't seem to be any obvious detrimental effect of having a flat equality curve. If each of the 5 income quintiles held exactly the same amount of wealth through force...aka taxation, how do you think the standard of living would fare through time. I'm not talking about immediately after the wealth was removed from the upper brackets; I'm talking about after several decades of such removal.(Actually, it is not quite flat, but it is the best example I can think of that has almost managed to achieve what you are asking about.) What type of consequences were you thinking about? Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
FEY writes:
It seems not. I was thinking about a reduction in the standard of living. But hasn't iceland always had the same distribution of wealth?Iceland's economy - like any economy - goes through changes. Unfortunately, there is not much data about wealth distribution in Iceland pre-2004.But since 2004, Iceland's wealth distribution curve has flattened further still - but with no signs of a drop in the standard of living. There seems to be no detrimental consequences to being in a 'flat wealth distribution curve' country."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Coyote writes:
well, if it is anything like the Borg-Warner Trophy, then it is worth over $1,000,000 !!
I'm going to give you a trophy indicating you won the Indy 500 next week.But if you're honest, it will be of no value to you as you didn't actually win that race. Coyote writes:
But it doesn't have less financial value, does it. you didn't earn it so it has far less value than money you actually earned through your own efforts.We are talking about 'wealth' redistribution, not 'pride' redistribution. Coyote writes:
I look at my family and I see something to be proud of. It is nothing to be proud of.I look at my friends and I see something to be proud of. I look at my hard-earned 'wealth' and I see nothing to be proud of.It's just money. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
I remember when the UK's minimum wage was being proposed; businesses cried foul, saying that it would cause unemployment to zoom straight up. Because even the 2-3 dollar rate is abusive and inhumane? But it turned out that they were just greedy bastards, desperately clinging to their gold. Unemployment was unaffected. But it still took until 1998 before the UK put in a minimum wage.Businesses will protest against anything that (on the face of it) will reduce profits. They also seem to forget that if an employee is paid more: they will spend more. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
I've asked that same question to many people, and no-one has an answer. Why should health care, education or utilities be market driven? In the UK we privatised our railways because they were costing the government too much money. But if a private company can make it profitable, why can't the government?If the answer to that is "Government departments are useless" then surely the solution is to fix the government departments. As it is, the government now subsidises the companies that run the railways! Before privatisation, any income was spent on running costs.After privatisation, any income is spent on running costs AND shareholders. Unsurprisingly, that didn't lead to lower fares. But, this is probably off-topic.Rant over. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
Which reminds me of this: The problem is that the fox's wealth gives him influence over henhouse security. I think too far off-topic for discussion - but fun and almost relevant to this thread. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Percy writes:
How do employers decide if they are willing to pay a particular wage? A job is worth what someone is willing to pay for it that someone else is willing to accept. It has nothing to do with any imaginary "economic benefit" to the company."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Percy writes:
You mean like in the real world? My employer's Human Resources department subscribes to salary surveys. They try to keep our salaries competitive with other companies in the same and similar industries. In other words, they pay market prices.Percy writes:
My question appears to have been unclear. Sorry. In other words, employers pay wages at prevailing market levels. That's how they "decide if they are willing to pay a particular wage." They pay a little more for more talent and experience, and a little less for less talent and experience. Employers will also pay a little more if they prefer to minimize turnover.How did they decide if they were willing to pay any wage at all? (i.e. decide to recruit someone at a wage greater than zero.) Imaginary Example:Imagine there was a business that had an office with 5 desks and that was all the office could hold. But they had enough work for 6 people. Would they just decide to employ a 6th person? And how would they make that decision? Real Example:My company needs a very specific skill set to help run and develop their system. There are only about 5 people in the world that have that skill set. It would be very useful if the company had 2 people with that skill - it would halve development time, bringing all the benefits of a fast release turnaround, etc. But to hire someone with that skill set would cost somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000.That is the market rate. So - why do you think we haven't hired someone?It would definitely be advantageous to have another developer. And we know the market rate. How do you think we decided that we were not willing to pay that particular wage? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Percy writes:
As I said, their wage was considered to be the current market rate of 100-200k.
That has nothing to do with setting the employee's salary were he hired. Percy writes:
Yes, we estimated the economic benefit of that additional employee. You made a business case arguing how much better or worse the company would do if they hired the new employee, a business case that took into account prevailing market level wages for that job. But you said that was not possible.So, maybe I am misunderstanding you. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Percy writes:
I would want their other overheads to be included with their wage - but it seems ok as an example.
Here's a table of how much a company benefits in terms of dollars from hiring the new employee Percy writes:
*nods* On the top line it says "$100,000". If the new hire enables the company to earn an additional $100,000, then you'd like to believe that the economic benefit of that job to the company is $100,000. That figure is close enough to his salary as to almost seem reasonable.Seems reasonable. Percy writes:
My salary is linked to inflation, but I only get the increase once a year - despite inflation constantly changing.
It gets even more ridiculous if one tries to claim a link between this supposed "economic benefit" and salary. In that case you'd have salaries changing constantly due to normal fluctuations in a company's revenue and earnings (which can both be negative, though usually only the latter). Percy writes:
But it is that employee contributing $5,000,000 to the company's bottom line. That's because it isn't that job that's contributing $5,000,000 to the company's bottom line. All that additional job does is allow the company as a whole to perform in way that enables it to make an additional $5,000,000.And you could show that it is, by sacking the employee and watching the $5,000,000 disappear. Percy writes:
Sure - it's a really big number, but the numbers are fictional. But the last scenario in the table says "$5,000,000". If the new hire enables the company to earn an additional $5,000,000, then you'd like to believe that the economic benefit to the company of that job is $5,000,000. But that's ridiculous, isn't it.I see nothing wrong with it, in principle. Why do you think it is ridiculous?"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024