In Defense if a Maximum Wage

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

...
E V E R Y M A N A K I N G

[Salandriagado]

Apart from any other problems, a maximum wage would singularly fail to achieve its stated objective, because the people it would effect tend not to derive their income primarily from their wage anyway.

[Trumptonium1]

A maximum wage would be a good idea, it doesn't make sense to pay people absurd sums of money when, after a certain point, there'd be no way to possibly spend it all in one year. Moreover, this would free up salary money for workers from company coffers, or incentivize them to invest in benefits for workers.

Yeah whether Bezos receives $15 000 000 or $10 000 000 sure makes a difference to Amazon's 650 000 employees. I bet they wish Bezos cut his salary to $1 000 000 and spread the other $14 000 000 out equally so they can receive their fair share of 21 dollars. To buy a pair of spoons on the Amazon website.

[Mardla]

Minimum wage doesn't actually do anything, because any gains labor takes from it will be erased by printing more money and increasing gimmedats, both of which make the cost of living go up.

While a maximum wage deflates the economy and so reduces consumption and investment and so reduces asset wealth including that which the elderly draw down for a private pension. It also reduces interest rates and so makes saving for a goal twice as hard.

I don't know if you can presume it reduces spending on investment. Consumption maybe, but that is quite questionable as well.

[Thermodolia]

What's your opinion of a "maximum wage" (or salary)?

At first glance, the idea of a maximum wage seems rather petty, almost driven by resentment--after all, how is it wrong for someone to be paid however much their employer is willing to pay?

However I personally favor a maximum wage as a way to remedy social harm. Rather than one-size-fits-all "maximum wage", I think different occupations should be capped differently. Marketing, for example, should have a relatively lower cap than more socially beneficial lines of work. The reason being that higher salaries or wages tends to attract higher quality minds (in this case, creativity). By lowering the incentive for these types of fields, their quality minds would be diverted to more lucrative careers. This would also product the price of products.

We better figure out this minimum wage stuff before jumping to another idea.

No minimum wage. Mandatory union membership. Wages shall be decided by collectivization agreements.

[Trumptonium1]

While a maximum wage deflates the economy and so reduces consumption and investment and so reduces asset wealth including that which the elderly draw down for a private pension. It also reduces interest rates and so makes saving for a goal twice as hard.

I don't know if you can presume it reduces spending on investment. Consumption maybe, but that is quite questionable as well.

It disincentivises investment because interest rates in the economy fall. Why would you invest for a pittance, especially if the time value on money is positive? When the economy is in deflation you might as well stash money under the bed, it'll be worth more tomorrow, next week, next month and in a year's time. No need to spend, or invest. Incredibly risk-free.

Not sure why reducing consumption would be questionable, for the same logic, and the same that economic theory and practice (Japan) says.

[Masinda]

There's a certain point at which banks start treating folks as institutions instead of individuals, and I think at that point, the level of inequality begins to become a threat to democratic norms. Last I knew, it was around 30-50 million in liquid assets. Beyond that, as you can read in this month's Atlantic, when folks reach "Ultra High Net Worth" status, there comes a point where more money doesn't really get them anything practical, and people start earning for the sake of outcompeting their peers rather than improving their own lives. This doesn't make them happier or more satisfied, and one of the folks they interviewed who studied this said he found even being around it depressing. That one is likely somewhere in the few hundred million range. If there's a point at which you're threatening democracy, no happier, and not really able to buy anything you couldn't before, isn't it a social good to just say right before that point, "Hey, you made it! Welcome to the club at the top. We're all financially equal up here, and no more politically equal than everyone else."? They'll be happier not having to keep up with the Bezoses, and democracy will be at less risk. Maybe a maximum income of around 33 million per year and a maximum wealth of 999 million, indexed to inflation. The ambitious will still have plenty of scope to struggle to reach that point, and anything beyond it can be directed to buoying folks at the bottom, securing a minimal amount of egalitarianism. Bezos will still get credit for contributing more massive amounts to social coffers than anyone else, if he still can't sit down and take a rest. Maybe he'll even ultimately be happier than when feeling like he's fighting off competition from below just for his own sake.

[Thermodolia]

A maximum wage would be a good idea, it doesn't make sense to pay people absurd sums of money when, after a certain point, there'd be no way to possibly spend it all in one year. Moreover, this would free up salary money for workers from company coffers, or incentivize them to invest in benefits for workers.

Yeah whether Bezos receives $15 000 000 or $10 000 000 sure makes a difference to Amazon's 650 000 employees. I bet they wish Bezos cut his salary to $1 000 000 and spread the other $14 000 000 out equally so they can receive their fair share of 21 dollars. To buy a pair of spoons on the Amazon website.

$21 added to $20 is $41. Or about $85k a year

[Trumptonium1]

Yeah whether Bezos receives $15 000 000 or $10 000 000 sure makes a difference to Amazon's 650 000 employees. I bet they wish Bezos cut his salary to $1 000 000 and spread the other $14 000 000 out equally so they can receive their fair share of 21 dollars. To buy a pair of spoons on the Amazon website.

$21 added to $20 is $41. Or about $85k a year

I'm sorry - what?

[Mardla]

Apart from any other problems, a maximum wage would singularly fail to achieve its stated objective, because the people it would effect tend not to derive their income primarily from their wage anyway.

You probably mistake my objective

[Thermodolia]

$21 added to $20 is $41. Or about $85k a year

I'm sorry - what?

Most amazon employees get paid about $20 an hour. So $21 extra an hour would be about $41 an hour or $85k a year

[Salandriagado]

Apart from any other problems, a maximum wage would singularly fail to achieve its stated objective, because the people it would effect tend not to derive their income primarily from their wage anyway.

You probably mistake my objective

Is it "some accountants switch their CEOs from getting their money as a salary to getting it in something that's technically not a salary"? Because that's what you're going to achieve.

[Masinda]

I don't know if you can presume it reduces spending on investment. Consumption maybe, but that is quite questionable as well.

It disincentivises investment because interest rates in the economy fall. Why would you invest for a pittance, especially if the time value on money is positive? When the economy is in deflation you might as well stash money under the bed, it'll be worth more tomorrow, next week, next month and in a year's time. No need to spend, or invest. Incredibly risk-free.

Not sure why reducing consumption would be questionable, for the same logic, and the same that economic theory and practice (Japan) says.

Wait a second - falling interest rates disincentivize becoming a creditor or saver, sure, but they don't necessarily disincentivize productive investment, because that makes borrowing cheaper. Cheap loans mean it's easy to expand your plant and equipment, or maintain it, and that becomes a more productive use of your money than loaning it. Plus, by increasing consumption, you're getting more market demand for those end products.


Also, sure, if Bezos's earnings just get redistributed to employees as wages, it might not go very far, but pooling them with his excess-of-limit investment earnings and the salaries and wages of everyone else above some limit, you've got quite a large pool to provide collective goods, such as infrastructure, technological improvements, or medical research, with.

[Trumptonium1]

Apart from any other problems, a maximum wage would singularly fail to achieve its stated objective, because the people it would effect tend not to derive their income primarily from their wage anyway.

You probably mistake my objective

But he is correct, your maximum wage doesn't make a difference unless you set it really low because most CEOs earn very little in cash. Jeff Bezos only has a cash wage of 85 000. The rest of his $1.6 million salary is pension and stock. Easterbrook in McDonalds, of his $15million wage, is only paid $550k in cash. The rest is stock options. Not sure if he gets a pension too.

What would your "maximum wage" do for someone like Jeff Bezos? Unless you're making the max wage $85k but then it's not just the rich it's some 65 000 000 Americans affected.
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

[Trumptonium1]

I'm sorry - what?

Most amazon employees get paid about $20 an hour. So $21 extra an hour would be about $41 an hour or $85k a year

Quite obviously, that is not per hour.

If that was $21 per hour, it would necessitate Bezos to have a yearly wage of 280 billion.

14 million dollars divided by 650 000 Amazon employees is 21 dollars each. Per year.

[Mardla]

I don't know if you can presume it reduces spending on investment. Consumption maybe, but that is quite questionable as well.

It disincentivises investment because interest rates in the economy fall. Why would you invest for a pittance, especially if the time value on money is positive? When the economy is in deflation you might as well stash money under the bed, it'll be worth more tomorrow, next week, next month and in a year's time. No need to spend, or invest. Incredibly risk-free.

Not sure why reducing consumption would be questionable, for the same logic, and the same that economic theory and practice (Japan) says.

It seems you're saying the banked-owned government must rip off the common man (deliberate inflation is ripping off money, it's not even above board, like taxes) in order to get him to give his money to banks, so they can lend it at usury and take his home. Otherwise his money doesn't attenuate in value, and he doesn't need to give it to usurers just to get by.

Is this correct?

[Trumptonium1]

It disincentivises investment because interest rates in the economy fall. Why would you invest for a pittance, especially if the time value on money is positive? When the economy is in deflation you might as well stash money under the bed, it'll be worth more tomorrow, next week, next month and in a year's time. No need to spend, or invest. Incredibly risk-free.

Not sure why reducing consumption would be questionable, for the same logic, and the same that economic theory and practice (Japan) says.

It seems you're saying the banked-owned government must rip off the common man (deliberate inflation is ripping off money, it's not even above board, like taxes) in order to get him to give his money to banks, so they can lend it at usury and take his home. Otherwise his money doesn't attenuate in value, and he doesn't need to give it to usurers just to get by.

Is this correct?

The answer to the principle of your strawman is yes.

Else the common man would be living in a mud hut. No successful society ever existed without finance, be it China or the US. The sole purpose of finance is to finance investment, or otherwise be the middleman in a world of information asymmetry.

[Kannap]

We better figure out this minimum wage stuff before jumping to another idea.

Minimum wage doesn't actually do anything, because any gains labor takes from it will be erased by printing more money and increasing gimmedats, both of which make the cost of living go up.

If the cost of living goes up then raise the minimum wage or find ways to make living cost less. Sounds like you're giving me problems without giving me sensible solutions.

[Mardla]

It seems you're saying the banked-owned government must rip off the common man (deliberate inflation is ripping off money, it's not even above board, like taxes) in order to get him to give his money to banks, so they can lend it at usury and take his home. Otherwise his money doesn't attenuate in value, and he doesn't need to give it to usurers just to get by.

Is this correct?

The answer to the principle of your strawman is yes.

Else the common man would be living in a mud hut. No successful society ever existed without finance, be it China or the US. The sole purpose of finance is to finance investment, or otherwise be the middleman in a world of information asymmetry.

Ehh, no, usury is not the foundation of civilization. Nice try tho

[Northwest Slobovia]

At first glance, the idea of a maximum wage seems rather petty, almost as it's driven by resentment

FTFY.

I think different occupations should be capped differently. Marketing, for example, should have a relatively lower cap than more socially beneficial lines of work. The reason being that higher salaries or wages tends to attract higher quality minds (in this case, creativity). By lowering the incentive for these types of fields, their quality minds would be diverted to more lucrative careers.

For example, the pay of athletes and actors should be capped. It doesn't matter that they're who the audiences want to see, their pay should be capped so that the team owners and movie studios can rake in as much money as they can. Ditto stock traders; it they pick a winning stock, the owners of the trading house should keep the money.

Marketing folks are similar: it doesn't matter if their clever ad campaign brings in a billion dollars to the company that hired them, they should get a few bucks, and the company's owners should reap the profits. It's not like creativity is worth rewarding.

[Sarcasm captioned for the deadpan impared.]

[Mardla]

Minimum wage doesn't actually do anything, because any gains labor takes from it will be erased by printing more money and increasing gimmedats, both of which make the cost of living go up.

If the cost of living goes up then raise the minimum wage or find ways to make living cost less. Sounds like you're giving me problems without giving me sensible solutions.

Well the full solution is pretty drastic, but a maximum wage would help deter engineered rises in the cost of living.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Maximum wage?

How about maximum wealth?

[Mardla]

At first glance, the idea of a maximum wage seems rather petty, almost as it's driven by resentment

FTFY.

I think different occupations should be capped differently. Marketing, for example, should have a relatively lower cap than more socially beneficial lines of work. The reason being that higher salaries or wages tends to attract higher quality minds (in this case, creativity). By lowering the incentive for these types of fields, their quality minds would be diverted to more lucrative careers.

For example, the pay of athletes and actors should be capped. It doesn't matter that they're who the audiences want to see, their pay should be capped so that the team owners and movie studios can rake in as much money as they can. Ditto stock traders; it they pick a winning stock, the owners of the trading house should keep the money.

Marketing folks are similar: it doesn't matter if their clever ad campaign brings in a billion dollars to the company that hired them, they should get a few bucks, and the company's owners should reap the profits. It's not like creativity is worth rewarding.

[Sarcasm captioned for the deadpan impared.]

I don't have an issue with wealth per se, I oppose income tax and inheritance tax and property tax.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Land tax is the fairest form of tax.

Henry George was onto something.

[The Serbian Empire]

It’d be better to limit the amount people in a company can earn in comparison to the lowest paid worker. So if you make it that no one can earn 20x the lowest paid worker, any CEO who wants a massive salary would have to increase the pay of their workers.

And obviously it’d have to include bonuses, portfolio pay, ect. And harsh penalties for evasion.

The shareholder demands would just say cut the executive pay and options package.