But the government had to repeatedly take over passenger trains as private business even with massive tax breaks cannot run the business without running into the red.
I suppose the best example of that service for dollars industry going tits up would be across the water in Britain , where the industry now recieves more government money despite charging higher fares than it did when it was government owned....and the government is having to buy back sections of the industry as companies are making bigger losses even with the higher subsidies.

Can you ask them what logical basis they have for saying he is worth that money? Have you included the opinions of those who aren't stockholders, or is "the public" limited to the bourgeosie?

It is no more arbitrary than laws saying that the maximum BAL when driving is such and such, or 18 is the minimum age for a wide range of activities.

Laws are at best a crude fit to morality and reality, about drawing lines in analogue sand. It doesn't mean the lines don't have to be drawn, or that the alternative of the law being a crude fit to the interests of the bourgeosie is healthy.

Look I just think they should pay them a little more money then they due. I'm sure it'll change within 200 to 300 hundred years from now.

I agree that businesses should stand or fall on their own merits. The problem I have with that particular example is that the government also runs them in the red, as they do everything else. The government does very little that actually generates revenue, and their far-and-away major source of income is taxation. And that doesn't give them enough, so they are always borrowing money.

But again, the government only gets that money by taking it from the people. I'm not saying that it would work for the water companies to charge exorbitant amounts of money for the water. That would probably lead to even more problems. But neither is funding everything by taking it from the people and then charging them for the service on top of it.

What is the answer? I don't know. There may not be one.

Why? If that's what they offer and I'm willing to take it, I go for it. If I don't like it, I look for a job somewhere else.

All the fast food places and stores, big and small, are paying about the same right now. I'd love to get work at any of them.

The job, like any other service, is worth exactly what the people paying the money think it is worth. If I start a job and make $7.25 per hour, that is because that's all the people who run things think my work is worth. If I can prove my work is worth $14.50 per hour to them, then they'll pay me that. If I can convince them that my work is worth $7,200,000 per year to them, then they'll pay me that. In all three cases it is a contract between them and me, and what anybody else thinks is irrelevant.

That's not actually correct Steve. You might be worth $14.50 per hour and the company might fully realize that's what you're worth, but if they can convince you to work for $7.50 then that's what they will do.

Ditto if they can find someone else who is perfectly willing to do the same job for $7.50/hr even though everybody involved knows it should pay more.

Good point, but if they find someone who'll take $7.50 for a $14.50 job they run the risk of finding out they got what they paid for.

Which is why companies that offer less for top managers get managers who're worth what they're paid, and the companies go under.

He is worth whatever he is paid, by definiton, period. If he is found not to be worth it, he gets replaced. I don't care in the least about the opinions of non-stockholders. Only the owners matter, and they properly only matter in proportion to their stake—as it should be.


Arbitrary laws are stupid. BTW, it is a common misconception that there is an arbitrary BAI limit. The limit applies to the level at which the police are REQUIRED to charge you. Any level above 0.00 is technically illegal.

I believe this is one of the tenets of Capitalism. Getting the most work for the least pay. :)

Same rules apply with any commodity. Has anyone ever voluntarily paid more than they had to for something?

Why do you not care about the opinions of non-stockholders? Are they not part of society? You've actually equated the stockholders to the public. And is not allowing the stockholders to decide what he is worth, without having to substantiate their decision in any way, most arbitrary?

Interesting, but effectively Almost the same thing IMO.

Yes, lots of times.
It can be very good business.
As it happens I also often recieve far more in payment than I have asked for.
It can be very good business.