3 ms·

I don't think the ratio is something you pin, I think it's an indicator of an increasing imbalance of power between labour and capital. I'm fine with the job ma

I don't think the ratio is something you pin, I think it's an indicator of an increasing imbalance of power between labour and capital. I'm fine with the job market mostly deciding rates (with a minimum wage pinned to a reasonable standard of living). I don't believe that you need to have a working poor in order to have a functioning economy, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary. I think we should run the economy in such a way as to maximise human happiness, and the working poor exist contrary to that goal. As for shareholders - I don't think they should get either sole control of profit or unlimited upside. I think companies should be controlled by all their stakeholders, including (especially) the workers. After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes.

conductr 5y ago
> I don't believe that you need to have a working poor, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. I would not advocate for a bad standard of living, but I also generally think the bottom's standard of living is not so bad in the current USA. (I do happen to think very wealth folks should be taxed more highly and offset the tax burden of the lower brackets. Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt). > After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes. No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide).
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. There will always be a bottom, sure - but currently I believe the bottom is far too low, with even full time workers having to use government support to survive and having to shoulder the stress and risk of living paycheck to paycheck. To say nothing of other "bottom" groups like the homeless and people in food deserts - it's pretty messed up that one of the richest countries on earth should not have solved these problems. > Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt But if that revenue was put into government services, then it would benefit the lower economic rungs. > No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Investors can still have incentive to invest while not having total control of the company alongside the founders. If we start a community soup pot and I bring the pot, should I be able to allocate everybody else subsistence quantities of food and keep everything else for myself, just because I brought the pot? That's unethical. > Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. That's not true in reality; most factory workers don't have the capacity to start their own factory, for instance. This is pretty much only true for well off people and software engineers whose means of production is readily available. Courting investors is time consuming and many people can't just go for it. > But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide). This leads directly to the insane income inequality we were talking about. Employees do all the work to generate profit, but get paid as little as the shareholders can get them to accept. You can't justify that ethically.

conductr 5y ago

> I don't believe that you need to have a working poor, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. I would not advocate for a bad standard of living, but I also generally think the bottom's standard of living is not so bad in the current USA. (I do happen to think very wealth folks should be taxed more highly and offset the tax burden of the lower brackets. Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt). > After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes. No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide).

beaconstudios 5y ago
> I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. There will always be a bottom, sure - but currently I believe the bottom is far too low, with even full time workers having to use government support to survive and having to shoulder the stress and risk of living paycheck to paycheck. To say nothing of other "bottom" groups like the homeless and people in food deserts - it's pretty messed up that one of the richest countries on earth should not have solved these problems. > Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt But if that revenue was put into government services, then it would benefit the lower economic rungs. > No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Investors can still have incentive to invest while not having total control of the company alongside the founders. If we start a community soup pot and I bring the pot, should I be able to allocate everybody else subsistence quantities of food and keep everything else for myself, just because I brought the pot? That's unethical. > Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. That's not true in reality; most factory workers don't have the capacity to start their own factory, for instance. This is pretty much only true for well off people and software engineers whose means of production is readily available. Courting investors is time consuming and many people can't just go for it. > But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide). This leads directly to the insane income inequality we were talking about. Employees do all the work to generate profit, but get paid as little as the shareholders can get them to accept. You can't justify that ethically.