Should salaries be capped?

[estesbob]

If he spends 40 hours a week teaching, I certainly feel sorry for him!!!

What’s with the Ad Hominum? Now you sound like the guy shouldn’t be a professor and a business owner as well.

His students (presumably) don’t work for him, so your suggestion doesn’t make sense.

Why would you feel sorry for him if he is merely asked to work the standard work week? And if the school is paying him to be a full tme professor how does he have time to run a business on the side? Hopefully he spend no time at all on it during the time he is being paid to teach,

It is perhaps unfair to peg his salary on his students earnings-instead lets peg it based on the pay of the graduate students that work at his university. Surely a professor or even the president of the univerity should not make more than say 5 times the earnings of the graduate students. Doing this would encourage them to think more about their welfare, dont you think?

I will have to admit that being I have no real world experience in running a university or teaching at one that perhaps my ideas are unworkable BUT on paper they work perfectly and isnt that all that matters?

 

[Scottgun]

I was hoping for a poll question, but in general, wage caps seem to violate the principle of subsidiarity.

 

[consumedconvert]

Why would you feel sorry for him if he is merely asked to work the standard work week? And if the school is paying him to be a full tme professor how does he have time to run a business on the side? Hopefully he spend no time at all on it during the time he is being paid to teach,

1. Most tenured professors spend about 12 hours a week teaching and the bulk of their week researching and writing. If he’s tenured, he’s no doubt published; very hard work! If you don’t think so, try it. No thank you! Grad school papers were enough for me.

It is perhaps unfair to peg his salary on his students earnings-instead lets peg it based on the pay of the graduate students that work at his university. Surely a professor or even the president of the univerity should not make more than say 5 times the earnings of the graduate students. Doing this would encourage them to think more about their welfare, dont you think?

Now you’re talking! Of course you’d have to figure in the cost of going to school in GAs salaries.

I’m glad you came over to my POV!

 

[vern_humphrey]

as *you *originally stated, the minimum wage effects what those paid moderately above it get. Semi skilled workers are paid an amount more, *relative *to the minimum. If all lowish wages have to be raised when the minimum is (as you stated) then it’s reasonable to assume that when the bottom is taken out of the wage structure, then all low wages will drop. (The reasoning might be, well if I no longer have to pay the guys packing boxes $6.00 - if they are now getting much less - then why should I continue to pay the person who checks the stock $9.00 an hour)

Pure gibberish. If employers control the labor market as you imply, no one would make more than minimum wage.

Since that isn’t true, clearly your model is wrong.

As I said before that assumes that employers pay as much as they can, rather than as little and that there are a large number of people on welfare because they are too costly to employ. Are you happy to pay tax to help top up the wages of people earning less than they can survive on?

Are you willing to pay tax to support those with no jobs at all – because of unwise wage laws?

 

[estesbob]

1. Most tenured professors spend about 12 hours a week teaching and the bulk of their week researching and writing. If he’s tenured, he’s no doubt published; very hard work! If you don’t think so, try it. No thank you! Grad school papers were enough for me.
   /'quote]

Surely you are not sugestng that i am not knowedgeble about your industry to suggest how it should be run.?

Now you’re talking! Of course you’d have to figure in the cost of going to school in GAs salaries.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern thinks that the minimum wage causes massive unemployment, but do you notice that he can’t produce an estimate of the actual number of people who have lost jobs? People here state hypotheses as facts and totally ignore whether there statements are supported by the data.

Actually, you were the one who posted the Treasury Department “study” and when I pointed out it was written in Government Gibberish and challenged you to parse the opening sentences, you declined.

According to the BLS, 21.9% of African American families had no one employed in 2006. Now, can you give me a reason for that?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Should we cap the salaries of tenured professors to say a factor of their students salary? How about we cap your salary at 5 times the average earnings of your students. And while we are at it why doesnt the govt step in and mandate the number of hours you must spend teaching in the classroom every week. Lets say we set it at 40. That sound ok to you?

Since I teach MBA students, I would have no problem with such a salary cap .

Actually, since I am at a state university, the government actually does mandate how much time I must spend in the classroom. It is a fair question for public debate. And how much credence we give to someone’s opinions should be based on logic and facts, not the industry in which someone works.

Now, for the record, I have not argued for a salary cap, but I have argued that salaries can in certain circumstances be unjustly inflated (i.e. the principal agent problem and CEO salaries). The fact that I am not a full time business owner should not by itself disqualify my arguments, but the facts of the situation.

As to spending 40 hours in the classroom each week, would this mean that I would not have to do anything else except teach?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Why would you feel sorry for him if he is merely asked to work the standard work week? And if the school is paying him to be a full tme professor how does he have time to run a business on the side? Hopefully he spend no time at all on it during the time he is being paid to teach,

Now, of course, the question is, why are you assuming that I am not working a standard work week? If I work 40 hours a week at my university, I would still have time to work for others on my own time. Do you control what your employees do on their own time?

In addition, am I only being paid to teach? Because that is not what my contract says.

 

[estesbob]

Now, of course, the question is, why are you assuming that I am not working a standard work week? If I work 40 hours a week at my university, I would still have time to work for others on my own time. Do you control what your employees do on their own time?

In addition, am I only being paid to teach? Because that is not what my contract says.

So you are telling me that I Dont understand how a university works and thus my lack of real world experience in this area leadAsme to make false assumptions about what will work ? Gee I wonder where else that applies?

 

[vern_humphrey]

We’re getting off-topic here. The question is, “Should salaries be capped?”

I think the preponderance of evidence is, “No. It would be economically unsound (to say the least) and represent an intrusion of government into an area where government has no Constitutional warrant.”

 

[ribozyme]

Actually, you were the one who posted the Treasury Department “study” and when I pointed out it was written in Government Gibberish and challenged you to parse the opening sentences, you declined.

According to the BLS, 21.9% of African American families had no one employed in 2006. Now, can you give me a reason for that?

What’s your reason? Are you going to castigate them for being lazy?

 

[estesbob]

What’s your reason? Are you going to castigate them for being lazy?

Your the one who beleives all kowledge comes from books and studies(at least you quote them a lot) so why dont you explain this to those of us who are not as insighful as others.

 

[krimshas]

Surely you are not sugestng that i am not knowedgeble about your industry to suggest how it should be run.?

Not at all! Comment all you want. You might start by recommending a cutback on some benefits for tenured profs in order to help lower skyrocketing tuition (no offense to any present, of course…)

Besides, it’s not my industry. I looked into going on a track to become a prof, but discovered it wasn’t for me. I haven’t worked in education since I was in grad school.

I dont think so. Most major companies pay for the ongoing schooling of their employees and do not count it as compensation. It appears to me you are trying to artificially inflate their pay so you can make more. How very capitalistic of you. BTW-how much over minimum wage do your Graduate Assistants make? Are they paid full benefits like paid vacation, health insurance, penison plans, etc?

Well, when I was a GA my tuition, room and board was counted as the bulk of my compensation. Outside of that, I got paid $700 a month, with an option to buy health insurance for myself for $450 a month (which every GA at my school perpetually declined, for obvious reasons). I think there’s a case to be made for a generally higher wage across the GA world–they do a lot of work and still have expenses, like car payments, etc. And full or near-fully provided healthcare in a situation where a student obviously can’t afford it on his own would be, I think, only humane.

But in terms of total benefits, the GAs probably did not less than 10x the average teacher, since almost no one made money at my Baptist college O course, no one knew for sure about the president and founder…

 

[consumedconvert]

Surely you are not sugestng that i am not knowedgeble about your industry to suggest how it should be run.?

Not at all! Comment all you want. You might start by recommending a cutback on some benefits for tenured profs in order to help lower skyrocketing tuition (no offense to any present, of course…)

Besides, it’s not my industry. I looked into going on a track to become a prof, but discovered it wasn’t for me. I haven’t worked in education since I was in grad school.

I dont think so. Most major companies pay for the ongoing schooling of their employees and do not count it as compensation. It appears to me you are trying to artificially inflate their pay so you can make more. How very capitalistic of you. BTW-how much over minimum wage do your Graduate Assistants make? Are they paid full benefits like paid vacation, health insurance, penison plans, etc?

Well, when I was a GA my tuition, room and board was counted as the bulk of my compensation. Outside of that, I got paid $700 a month, with an option to buy health insurance for myself for $450 a month (which every GA at my school perpetually declined, for obvious reasons). I think there’s a case to be made for a generally higher wage across the GA world–they do a lot of work and still have expenses, like car payments, etc. And full or near-fully provided healthcare in a situation where a student obviously can’t afford it on his own would be, I think, only humane.

But in terms of total benefits, the GAs probably did not less than 10x the average teacher, since almost no one made money at my Baptist college O course, no one knew for sure about the president and founder…

 

[estesbob]

But in terms of total benefits, the GAs probably did not less than 10x the average teacher, since almost no one made money at my Baptist college O course, no one knew for sure about the president and founder…

I was educated by the Sisters of Charity of leavenworth and if one made 100 times their pay they would still be broke. However in college i had Jesuits as teachers and they could probably give your founder a run for his money

 

[ribozyme]

Your the one who beleives all kowledge comes from books and studies(at least you quote them a lot) so why dont you explain this to those of us who are not as insighful as others.

I am not in the mood to address my own opinions on that politically sensitive topic. I feel you are trying to elicit a certain answer from me that would be politically incorrect.

However, it seems that conservatives push the Horatio Alger mythology as a part of their agenda to say that those who fail are fully culpable for their adversity and they shouldn’t blame “society” or have any sentiments of “entitlement.”

(And also in the conservative’s world, there would be plenty of teenagers who hold patents to blockbuster drugs. This is referring to posts made in thread thread on Friday.)

In another thread, Vern has claimed that African-Americans have a low IQ (in that thread he introduced it not me) and one reason is because they do not have enough education. If this is indeed correct, education will improve the intelligence of African-Americans and would provide them the skills to acquire jobs with sufficient remuneration and prevent the irksome free-riding effects of using state-funded welfare.

For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that education will improve the condition of that population. The first question is whether public policy measures should be enacted to increase access to education for African-Americans. I would assume the answer is yes. Next question we should ask: how we should provide the education to them?

1. Do we increase funding to the public school system?
2. Do we invoke the “free” market as it is supposedly delivers goods in an efficient fashion without any possible exception?

Of course, (1) will ostensibly be opposed by conservatives whose adocate an minarchist agenda. (2), however, will not solve the problem as African-Americans have a higher propensity to poverty and problem could not afford education. But, of course that is a false dilemma. Here’s is a proposal that might be a compromise:

1. Using state money to provision resources to African-Americans (and other low income groups) so they can purchase better education. (i.e. a voucher system.)

A voucher system will probably increase taxes. Since my last sentence has a subjunctive tone, one can argue that by diverting money away from public system will offset any increase in taxes. If such a policy increase taxes, it would be antithetical to the conservative agenda as they absolutely loathe Pareto inefficient intervention from that bogeyman the state.

But this post isn’t an apologetic for any particular public policy suggestion, but a polemic against conservative thinking. I apologize for presenting an extremely simplified analysis as I did not put much time into cogitation while writing this.

 

[rlg94086]

I am not in the mood to address my own opinions on that politically sensitive topic. I feel you are trying to elicit a certain answer from me that would be politically incorrect.

However, it seems that conservatives push the Horatio Alger mythology as a part of their agenda to say that those who fail are fully culpable for their adversity and they shouldn’t blame “society” or have any sentiments of “entitlement.”

(And also in the conservative’s world, there would be plenty of teenagers who hold patents to blockbuster drugs. This is referring to posts made in thread thread on Friday.)

In another thread, Vern has claimed that African-Americans have a low IQ (in that thread he introduced it not me) and one reason is because they do not have enough education. If this is indeed correct, education will improve the intelligence of African-Americans and would provide them the skills to acquire jobs with sufficient remuneration and prevent the irksome free-riding effects of using state-funded welfare.

For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that education will improve the condition of that population. The first question is whether public policy measures should be enacted to increase access to education for African-Americans. I would assume the answer is yes. Next question we should ask: how we should provide the education to them?

1. Do we increase funding to the public school system?
2. Do we invoke the “free” market as it is supposedly delivers goods in an efficient fashion without any possible exception?

Of course, (1) will ostensibly be opposed by conservatives whose adocate an minarchist agenda. (2), however, will not solve the problem as African-Americans have a higher propensity to poverty and problem could not afford education. But, of course that is a false dilemma. Here’s is a proposal that might be a compromise:

1. Using state money to provision resources to African-Americans (and other low income groups) so they can purchase better education. (i.e. a voucher system.)

A voucher system will probably increase taxes. Since my last sentence has a subjunctive tone, one can argue that by diverting money away from public system will offset any increase in taxes. If such a policy increase taxes, it would be antithetical to the conservative agenda as they absolutely loathe Pareto inefficient intervention from that bogeyman the state.

But this post isn’t an apologetic for any particular public policy suggestion, but a polemic against conservative thinking. I apologize for presenting an extremely simplified analysis as I did not put much time into cogitation while writing this.

You do realize of course that your arch-nemesis, Vern, has posted multiple times about voucher systems, right? It is a conservative idea and favored by most Republicans. Democrats and other liberals oppose it. So, for a “polemic against conservative thinking,” you just recommended a very conservative initiative.

EDIT ADD: It is Libertarians who favor option 2 in its extreme form. While they are a form of conservative, some of their views are not well accepted…including privatizing schools, police forces, etc. This is why they are such a small group.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually, you were the one who posted the Treasury Department “study” and when I pointed out it was written in Government Gibberish and challenged you to parse the opening sentences, you declined.

According to the BLS, 21.9% of African American families had no one employed in 2006. Now, can you give me a reason for that?

Sorry Vern, but I don’t recall posting a Treasury Department study and I looked back and couldn’t find it. If you tell me the number of the post I can address your question.

As to your second question, there are many possible reasons why the African American unemployment rate is so high. One possibility is what is called the spacial mismatch hypothesis, which argues that jobs moved out of the cities and into the suburbs and so many minorities cannot get to where the jobs are. Another problem is the implicit tax on welfare benefits. If you lose 60 cents in welfare benefits for every dollar you earn, that significantly reduces the incentive to find a job. In many urban areas the minimum wage is not a binding constraint, since most unskilled jobs pay more than the minimum wage, so that is likely to be a minor cause of the higher unemployment rate.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So you are telling me that I Dont understand how a university works and thus my lack of real world experience in this area leadAsme to make false assumptions about what will work ? Gee I wonder where else that applies?

While it is certainly possible that your lack of real world experience leads you to false assumptions, lack of real world experience is not sufficient for false assumptions to be made. Some people who don’t work in universities might be able to look at the data and come to very reasonable conclusions. Same thing applies to business, I reject the idea that they only way someone can understand the business world is to own a business. The perspective of business owners is a useful component of any analysis, but we also have to weigh their opinions against the actual data to come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sorry Vern, but I don’t recall posting a Treasury Department study and I looked back and couldn’t find it. If you tell me the number of the post I can address your question.

You don’t recall the “owning your own home is income” discussion?

As to your second question, there are many possible reasons why the African American unemployment rate is so high. One possibility is what is called the spacial mismatch hypothesis, which argues that jobs moved out of the cities and into the suburbs and so many minorities cannot get to where the jobs are. Another problem is the implicit tax on welfare benefits. If you lose 60 cents in welfare benefits for every dollar you earn, that significantly reduces the incentive to find a job. In many urban areas the minimum wage is not a binding constraint, since most unskilled jobs pay more than the minimum wage, so that is likely to be a minor cause of the higher unemployment rate.

Gee, Willikers!

You mean things like “urban renewal,” “housing projects,” welfare, poor education and so on all contributed to creating a condition where the labor of some people was worth less than minimum wage?

And a brass band played “Whodathunkit!”