Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: But that's the question: Who says what they are worth?  I do, of course. As it is now, companies and workers both have a role in deciding what they get paid.  Workers compete with each other to obtain jobs (by pursuing education, experience, etc), and companies compete to earn a profit. Yeah the employer says this all I'm going to give you and good luck trying to better elsewhere. If a company wants to pay me minimum wage and I believe that based on my skills and experience, I should be paid more, I'll look elsewhere. And if there isn't anyone offering you a better job, you're screwed.  And if a company wants to pay their CEO millions a year, that's for the company to decide.  Actually it isn't, that's become a good old boy's network. If you aren't from the privileged club, you don't get in.   It's their money that they (presumably) legally made. If I want to make millions, I can either work my way up, The Horatio Alger myth must die. or take the risk (yes- business owners took a huge risk) of starting my own business.  If you don't have the money to start with you can't do that out of thin air.

exactly...... every red word of it.

NaturalScience wrote: Jim Garten wrote: "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs" I need a beer and a cigarette... any offers? Sure, Mr. Garten, just stand in this line for a couple of hours... Ooo, I'm sorry, looks like we're out of beer.  Maybe come back tomorrow?

Epignosis wrote: But that's the question: Who says what they are worth?  I do, of course. As it is now, companies and workers both have a role in deciding what they get paid.  Workers compete with each other to obtain jobs (by pursuing education, experience, etc), and companies compete to earn a profit. Yeah the employer says this all I'm going to give you and good luck trying to better elsewhere. If a company wants to pay me minimum wage and I believe that based on my skills and experience, I should be paid more, I'll look elsewhere. And if there isn't anyone offering you a better job, you're screwed.  And if a company wants to pay their CEO millions a year, that's for the company to decide.  Actually it isn't, that's become a good old boy's network. If you aren't from the privileged club, you don't get in.   It's their money that they (presumably) legally made. If I want to make millions, I can either work my way up, The Horatio Alger myth must die. or take the risk (yes- business owners took a huge risk) of starting my own business.  If you don't have the money to start with you can't do that out of thin air.

Edited by Slartibartfast - March 26 2009 at 12:33

"From each according to their means, to each according to their needs"

I need a beer and a cigarette... any offers?

Epignosis wrote: micky wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I don't view CEOs being fairly compensated and workers being fairly compensated as opposing ideas.  No one's talking about taking away the profit motive.  And it should be remembered that without the workers to do the work and buy the stuff that is produced the CEO's would all be out of a job.   exactly... re-distribution of wealth... is exactly what it means.... paying the CEO's what they are worth (less).. and the American worker what they are worth (more).  If anyone here thinks that the current balance is fair... 262 times the average worker.... you are truly beyond help and discussion here in this thread.  Without the worker..the the main producer.. and also the main consumer.. the whole thing falls apart. But that's the question: Who says what they are worth?  As it is now, companies and workers both have a role in deciding what they get paid.  Workers compete with each other to obtain jobs (by pursuing education, experience, etc), and companies compete to earn a profit. If a company wants to pay me minimum wage and I believe that based on my skills and experience, I should be paid more, I'll look elsewhere.  And if a company wants to pay their CEO millions a year, that's for the company to decide.  It's their money that they (presumably) legally made. If I want to make millions, I can either work my way up, or take the risk (yes- business owners took a huge risk) of starting my own business.

the answer is easy.... the govenment does... the free market has failed in that respect... it has allowed those CEO saleries to skyrocket.. and worker wages to barely account for inflation...  free market as you lay out is a failure... a de-regulated free market...  and has led this country to the brink of finanical disaster...

the government thorugh regulation... can help make things.. not equal.. that is rediculous... but more equitable.  That is the role of government... to govern... to manage ....to protect this country... and this.. make NO misake... is a direct threat to the well being of this country. Without workers producing... and spending.. the machine breaks down...

Finnforest wrote: NaturalScience wrote: To head off discussion going off in extremis, I'll assume that those in favor of "wealth distribution" mean, as Jim said, that everyone get some basic entitlements (healthcare, pension, etc.) and a progressive tax structure akin to what we have now, perhaps just tweaking the numbers.  I don't think anyone is advocating something foolish like "everyone gets paid the same".  But please correct me if I'm wrong.     That is correct, for me.  I'm talking about a system akin to Scandinavia, where people believe taking care of each other is moral and last time I checked, they still have plenty of rich people in Denmark, France, Sweden, et al...     I'd like to see a system where people who are willing to work and save money will be taken care of in their older years, *without worry*    I'm so tired of seeing old people choose between medicine and food, of seeing people get cancer and have to worry about losing their job because of chemo side effects.  Having to organize bake sales to help cover their 50000$ in medical bills that their "insurance" doesn't want to pay for.    That is so immoral for our good God-fearing country.

I lived in Finland for close to six years, and what I can tell you is that yes, there are rich people, but they are nowhere as ostentatious of their wealth as they are here in the US, or even in my native country of Italy. As a matter of fact, showing off wealth is considered to be very bad form in the Scandinavian countries. I had several friends who were quite well-off, but lived very sensibly - comfortably, but without excess. And hopefully no one will bring up the suicide rate in those countries, which has nothing to do with the socio-political system at all.

As to your second point, I cannot deny being worried for my future. Even with insurance, an unexpected illness could wipe out half or more of my savings... Hopefully, things will change in one way or the other. I can understand not wanting to pay benefits for lazy people (who, in my humble opinion, will always exist), but not adding insult to injury in the presence of a serious illness.

NaturalScience wrote: To head off discussion going off in extremis, I'll assume that those in favor of "wealth distribution" mean, as Jim said, that everyone get some basic entitlements (healthcare, pension, etc.) and a progressive tax structure akin to what we have now, perhaps just tweaking the numbers.  I don't think anyone is advocating something foolish like "everyone gets paid the same".  But please correct me if I'm wrong.

^ Redistribution of wealth happened in Africa ( is happening) largely due to the fallout of greed from colonisation. Europe deserted for the most part once the profits of doom (sic) were loud and clear.

Share your own customer images

Search inside this book

---

List Price: $15.95 Price: $15.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details   Special Offers Available

In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Only 1 left in stock--order soon (more on the way).

Edited by Slartibartfast - March 26 2009 at 12:09

Slartibartfast wrote: I don't view CEOs being fairly compensated and workers being fairly compensated as opposing ideas.  No one's talking about taking away the profit motive.  And it should be remembered that without the workers to do the work and buy the stuff that is produced the CEO's would all be out of a job.

Yep.