Should salaries be capped?

[vern_humphrey]

I’m working hard now, and plan to work hard all my life (well, at least until I’m a geriatric).

But isn’t that what I’m saying? Not everyone has or gets that opportunity.

Very few people “have or get” an opportunity – the majority of successful people make their opportunities.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m working hard now, and plan to work hard all my life (well, at least until I’m a geriatric).

But isn’t that what I’m saying? Not everyone has or gets that opportunity.

Taking care of the few exceptions is important. Building a system around the few exceptions “who can’t work hard” is not smart IMHO.

 

[estesbob]

That’s not really any of your business, bud. But are most very small (in terms of personnel) businesses able to provide group health insurance? He provides for his people as much as possible. It’s not your place to criticize my employer if he doesn’t have the same access to health insurance as a large business has.

Besides, how is this a contest between you and my employer?

WOW! I seem to have touched a nerve. I take it from your reply the answer is no. Interesting.

 

[estesbob]

I’m working hard now, and plan to work hard all my life (well, at least until I’m a geriatric).

But isn’t that what I’m saying? Not everyone has or gets that opportunity.

Gee I wish I knew there was someplace I could have went where they would GIVE me the oportunity to start my own business. Would have made things a lot easier…

 

[consumedconvert]

WOW! I seem to have touched a nerve. I take it from your reply the answer is no. Interesting.

Who said the answer was “No?”

In my company of three full-timers, the boss provides a generous health-fund for private insurance.

All I said is that it’s really none of your business, just as how much you or your employees make is none of mine.

But anyway, I fail to see how this is on-post. This is not a contest between one small employer and another.

If I praise my boss because he’s a good Catholic and provides well for us, what is that to you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Who said the answer was “No?”

In my company of three full-timers, the boss provides a health-fund for private insurance. However, anyone who’s ever navigated the private insurance morass, however, knows that gets difficult. Private insurance is not always an option, because some people won’t take you.

I believe all I said is that it’s really none of your business; just like how much you or your employees make is really none of mine.

I think you just answered the title question of this thread.

 

[consumedconvert]

I think you just answered the title question of this thread.

I did give my answer, in previous posts.

The specifics of what you or I make have nothing to do with this thread. We’re discussing an economic hypothesis.

But if I praise my boss for being a good Catholic and providing well for us, what is that to you?

 

[estesbob]

Who said the answer was “No?”

In my company of three full-timers, the boss provides a generous health-fund for private insurance.

All I said is that it’s really none of your business, just as how much you or your employees make is none of mine.

But anyway, I fail to see how this is on-post. This is not a contest between one small employer and another.

If I praise my boss because he’s a good Catholic and provides well for us, what is that to you?

source none of my business how your boss runs his companyi got is okay for you to tell me what ratio my salary should be to my employees. Go figure

By the way you might want to let your boss know if he set up a group policy everyone would be eligible regardless of pre-existing conditions

 

[vern_humphrey]

I did give my answer, in previous posts.

The specifics of what you or I make have nothing to do with this thread. We’re discussing an economic hypothesis.

No, we’re discussing siezing control of the economy, injecting arbitrary governmental obstacles into the basic equation, and bringing on a new depression.

But if I praise my boss for being a good Catholic and providing well for us, what is that to you?

If it’s nothing to me, why did you post it on this forum?

But the answer is, it’s none of anyone’s business what the owners pay their employees – including what they pay the CEO.

 

[consumedconvert]

No, we’re discussing siezing control of the economy, injecting arbitrary governmental obstacles into the basic equation, and bringing on a new depression.

IYHO, of course. But even your skewed description describes, I believe, an “economic theory,” as stated.

If it’s nothing to me, why did you post it on this forum?

Perhaps I should have said, “If I praise my boss, how does that offend you?”

But the answer is, it’s none of anyone’s business what the owners pay their employees – including what they pay the CEO.

I disagree, obviously.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I disagree, obviously.

First you agreed, then you disagreed, then you agreed again and now you disagree.

 

[consumedconvert]

First you agreed, then you disagreed, then you agreed again and now you disagree.

And you, my friend, mischaracterize.

 

[cynic]

What a tap dance!

There’s nothing between you and a successful business but air and opportunity – and, of course, the willingness to work hard.

Then who would be the employees? Why can’t you admit that any business needs employees, many of which will be on middling to low incomes. Instead of blaming people for “not working hard” (assuming that paid employment doesn’t involve hard work which is in itself deliberately divisive), why not face the issue that some people by necessity will have lower incomes than others and will have a harder time affording health care, edcuation for children etc. The point of the thread it seems was to question whether increased productivity are not be being shared with staff adequately, and instead funneled into ridiculously high pay packages for CEOs and senior management. Do these people deserve substantial incomes? Of course, but it’s the degree to which they are paid. If pay packages were limited to 2 million annually for eg, you would still have many well qualified candidates competing for high positions and doing their best for their companies. There’d just be more left over for future investment and perhaps a small increase for the average earner.

 

[consumedconvert]

I’m going to take a breather and quote one of my own posts from another thread. It would probably benefit all of us, definitely including myself, to ponder it a bit.

I’m not sure who said it, but I absolutely agree that what we are trying to do–by way of choosing a political philosophy–is find the best way to apply Catholic principles to our society. Sometimes these socio-political threads get pretty heated; but lets remember we’re after the same basic thing, which is the greatest true good for society.

Matthew was a tax-collector for the Romans, and Simon was a Zealot, who we might call today a Zionist. These two would probably have never come together–had it not been for Jesus.

Can we assume that after His ascension they agreed in political philosophy? No reason to think so. Yet they were united in caring for the Spiritual needs of a foundling Church.

Everyone of us (again, definitely including myself) need to make sure that while legitimately holding differing views of socio/politico/economics, we remain charitable and united.

OK, now back to the debate…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then who would be the employees? Why can’t you admit that any business needs employees, many of which will be on middling to low incomes.

Ah, by not working up to your potential, and not paying the taxes on the money you are capable of making, and not contributing to charity as you could if you made more, you do the rest of us a service?

Gotcha.

 

[consumedconvert]

Ah, by not working up to your potential, and not paying the taxes on the money you are capable of making, and not contributing to charity as you could if you made more, you do the rest of us a service?

Gotcha.

I think part of the point he was making, is where would guys like you, who run a good business (no reason not to think so), be without your employees, and good employees?

Surely they are not all buffoons to not go out and become your competitors! Of course not!

 

[consumedconvert]

Ah, by not working up to your potential, and not paying the taxes on the money you are capable of making, and not contributing to charity as you could if you made more, you do the rest of us a service?

Gotcha.

All men are created equal; but not all men are capable of procuring or maintaining the same economic standing. To deny that is to affirm one of the tenets of communism, and I know you are no communist.

 

[cynic]

don’t worry it’s a typical avoidance mechanism - blame the lowly paid so as to create an idealogical justification to pay them even less and thus save on labor costs. If everyone only stayed in paid employment for a few years, just long enough to save some money and start their own business, then all businesses would fail.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think part of the point he was making, is where would guys like you, who run a good business (no reason not to think so), be without your employees, and good employees?

I think the point he was making was erecting an excuse for not maximizing his potential.

Most people have a 40+ year working life. People have been known to start out as mail clerks or hod-carriers and wind up as the CEO. So if he starts a business, he hires young people, trains them and over the course of time, they either get promoted (and perhaps take over the business when he retires) or move on to more responsible (and better paid) jobs elsewhere – or start their own businesses

 

[vern_humphrey]

All men are created equal; but not all men are capable of procuring or maintaining the same economic standing. To deny that is to affirm one of the tenets of communism, and I know you are no communist.

The question, M’lad, is why some men are not capable of procuring or maintaining the same economic standing as others. Here are some of the most common reasons:

1. Not as smart as those who make more.
2. Not as healthy as those who make more.
3. Not as willing to work hard as those who make more.