SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - A new and possible more just pay system is in the working

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - A new and possible more just pay system is in the working (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159148)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1219242)

Sports figures. They used to be the pawns of the owners. They were lucky if they made enough to live on. Back in 1919 the players of the Chicago White Sox were so badly treated that they took money from gamblers to lose the World Series, which they were guaranteed to win. This is fabulously portrayed in the book and movie Eight Men Out.

Today the owner needs to fill his seats, and winners do that. Is player X worth $20 million per year? Maybe not to you or me, but to the owner he obviously is or he wouldn't get that much.

The same is true of actors and musicians. If I play at a local club and get $50, that's what I'm worth. But if everybody suddenly wants my record and I make $2 million, am I not worth that? Who decides?

A new movie is being made. The producers and director think that Johnny Depp will be perfect for the role, and make them a lot more money. Depp says he wants $15 million just to show up. The powers-that-be say "No! Too much!" Depp agrees to a lesser amount, or they find somebody else. On the other hand they say "Yeah, we need him, and he's worth it!"

Is he worth it? Who decides? The filmmakers, or some lawmaker?

Legally-mandated wage caps sound good on paper, but the only way to enforce them is to pass laws, and that means that you give yourself the power to force others to do what you think is right, and that's tyranny all over again.

I agree with everything you're saying. It makes perfect sense, if your a capitalist. My point is that there is a fundamental flaw in any society that places a higher value on entertainment than ourselves. It just shows where our priorities are and how our entire system works.

Some of the most important jobs in the US are some of the lowest paying. If you look at the wages for teachers, police, the military, fire and EMS services and compare them to the outrageous salaries paid to sports figures and performers, that's where I think there is a flaw. It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this issue. Since we disagree, I think we should start seeing other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MothBalls (Post 1219668)

Some of the most important jobs in the US are some of the lowest paying. If you look at the wages for teachers, police, the military, fire and EMS services and compare them to the outrageous salaries paid to sports figures and performers, that's where I think there is a flaw. It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

Imagine what your tax bill would be if we payed every cop, teacher, soldier, sailor, airman, fireman and EMS tech in the nation what they pay Johnny Depp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MothBalls (Post 1219668)

It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

Very true. Unfortunately increasing the public money means increasing the money taken from the public. The left (in the US anyway) says that government is the solution, and the right says that government is the problem. And the real answer is beyond any of us to resolve. Fairness vs freedom? Equality vs individuality? I don't know if those are even the right questions, let alone any of the answers. And I don't trust most of the people who claim they do.

Quote:

Since we disagree, I think we should start seeing other people.

But...but...you promised!:cry:

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1219175)

Pay has always been based on how many people can do a particular job.

The Banker makes more than the toilet cleaner because he has the education and smarts to work with large amounts of money without screwing it up. How many cleaning ladies would you trust with your savings?

The baseball star is paid a lot because very few people can hit a big league fastball.

Now while it'd be nice to cut high paying salaries in half you're never gonna see a well paid janitor because he's just too easily replaced.

Agreed. Now, if we can only find a system that revokes these high paid guys' savings when they screw up, I will be happy. :cool:

Good point. When the cleaning lady screws up we don't give her a bonus and tell her to name her own price.

Quote:

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn.

Yeah, wait until the interest rates go up.
What a dumb study. If their looking for drags on society, how about they do a study on lawyers and gov't employees.

I have no sympathy for the gov't class.

When are you guys going to realize your slaves? Pay your masters... :haha:

This goes against my normal libertarian leanings but maybe we need a national salary cap. A limit to the total amount of compensation any one person can receive in a year.

Hey, it's worked pretty well for the NFL. :DL

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1220076)

I'm no economist, so take all this with a pinch of salt...

I don't like caps.
There should still be wage competition for high earners.

Exponential wage tax would be better.

Something like this: (totally made up numbers)

Wage - Tax
1m - 30%
2m - 35%
3m - 45%
4m - 60%
[...]
20m - 98%
30m - 98.5%
[...]
10,000m - 99.995%
Etc.

That way you can still pay someone 1000m, it's just gonna be very inefficient.
The other advantage over caps is extra tax revenue.

I think we should just go back to the barter system. :up:

I think wealth should be divided according to post counts.

ed: Double post. Sorry.

Ca-ching!

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1219175)

Pssst. Your post contains too much common sense. That goes against the enlightened religion of Bull****, which is striving to form utter confusion into a doctrin, so that we'll all be together in peace when our Western societies go down the toilet and are consumed by those waiting down there, hoping for it so that no one will be left to notice their dirty smell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum (Post 1220485)

I'm no economist, so take all this with a pinch of salt...

I don't like caps.
There should still be wage competition for high earners.

Exponential wage tax would be better.

They are the same thing in the end except that your way sounds a lot more complicated.

A simple cap somewhere in the mid range of present high paying salaries, say around 50 million total compensation. Anything over that is taxed at 100%. I'd also favor allowing a percentage of it to be reinvested back into the persons business, say for hiring more employees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc (Post 1220527)

:up:

Reading this thread from the beginning, I was about to hammer out nearly the same response August made.

The bottom line is this: why would anyone in their right mind educate themselves well enough to be a banker when they can make a more lucrative living as a janitor right out of the gate? Or are you suggesting that bankers altogether are unnecessary (which is equally absurd, as is the liquid form of economics going to merely handle itself)?

Like someone else said, what a silly study, as frankly all studies are when they are commissioned for the purpose of proving a point rather than gathering a fact.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think the government should impose any executive pay cap on American businesses.

Actually, I have what I believe to be a far more effective solution: repeal the Capital Gains Tax, EXCEPT from gains made from businesses who have any executive making more than $10m a year. That way, if the executive is talented enough and providing the results needed to still financially lure investors in even though they will be levied an additional tax for investing in the company, he's worth the pay. If not, investors will drop like flies FORCING the company to reduce executive pay in order to attract capital.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc (Post 1220527)

Pssst.

:) :salute:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1220569)

I like your idea better than mine...