Should salaries be capped?

[rlg94086]

About giving people jobs, some people cannot join the military.

udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf (pg. 12). What should we do for them?

• Ryo

I started to read that drivel, but is nothing but elitist, academic excrement. I know you are proud of your vocabulary and your academic excellence. They are great skills to have…if you want to work in the academic and scientific fields. You *may *even be able to make a decent living with those skills.

However, one of the ways that paper measures what they call “g” (general intelligence) is vocabulary. Sadly, vocabulary is overrated. As many successful businesspeople will tell you, speaking plainly is more effective. Words, such as jejune, which are not in common use will just make you sound like an elitist snob that no one wants to deal with.

Yes, you should to be able to speak well and have a decent vocabulary, but don’t fool yourself into judging someone’s “g” based on their vocabulary. There are multi-millionaires who never finished high school. They aren’t book-smart, but they are very, very intelligent. Big difference!

Now, for those who are neither book-smart nor street-smart? They have a tough lot in life. Luckily, both can be learned, but then you need another important element - desire. This is the secret of success for capitalism. Every human being has some desire to improve. The level of desire and the willingness to work hard (academically and/or physically) is what brings success.

The person working at McDonalds or some other entry-level job is not necessarily destined to stay there. It depends on their desire and willingness to do what is necessary to succeed.

 

[ribozyme]

This thread is all about class envy & coveting thy neighbors goods. REPENT! Go to confession and then read a good book on economics so that you all understand how our economy works and what doesn’t work. The Catholic Church is no place for socialism or communism.

Ha…ha…ha…

Well, I guess Warren Buffett guilty of “class envy” too. Too bad you could not use that against him.

 

[D317]

Ha…ha…ha…
Well, I guess Warren Buffet guilty of “class envy” too. Too bad you could not use that against him.

Gosh, it must be wonderful to be so elite. You must be real smart too! And so intellectual. And to actually be hanging on to the very real hope that you will not die, but live forever without the belief in God. WOW!

1. Buffet is so phony that he is totally unwilling to follow his own prescription for helping the poor and most needy. He wants THE STATE to confiscate other people’s hard earned money to help others. He takes the big tax dodge to avoid paying hundreds of millions to THE STATE. This is so hypocritical that you must have missed it. But then again, isn’t that what you, Buffet, and the other elitists are all about: creating oppressive systems in the name of “helping others” without adversely impacting yourselves?
2. What if somehow everyone in the world made at least $100,000 per year! Wouldn’t that be wonderful? The problem is that $100,000 would now be your new benchmark for poverty and your drivel would continue. You would bemoan the fact that death still occurs and people couldn’t be cryogenically preserved on such a meager salary. I’ve got to give it to you, you are a real piece of work, shoddy but still one of God’s creatures.
3. My posts only evoke anger in you because they are correct. Your posts on the other hand only make me chuckle. You are living an illusion (or is it allusion?) where you have all the right answers and can’t stand the fact that people are actually calling your nonsense what it is…Cr@*!
   Welcome to the real world where the silver spoon feedings stop & the tough love begins.
   [sign] BTW, since you tell us that you are subject to sudden outbursts of a violent emotion or action you should seek medical attention. You need more help than we thought.
   DON’T WAIT FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, CALL 911 NOW![/sign]
4. Of course **rlg94086 **is correct, you ARE looking down your elite nose at people who work at McDonalds and any other place that you feel is “unworthy” of your high standards. Only the elitist STATE can really determine what work is “worthy” or has utility in society, right?
5. Your plea for me to “respond to this” post is tough since you want me to respond to third party responses to your posts (I guess)!

5a. If you do not believe in God and his Goodness, I can not help you. Only God can. Divine Plan and central planning are not the same thing.

5b. Scandinavia isn’t a country, it refers to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. You are no doubt partial to the fact that they are all MONARCHIES ruled by a royal class. They all have impressive GDP-PPP (3, 9, and 16 I believe) for second tier countries; but, if you look at Univ Penn comparative numbers they all rank well below the US. Of course, when you calculate the TAX BURDEN for your “three amigos” they are in the $15,000 bracket, which puts them around 45th. But then, THE NANNY STATE looks after everyone so who needs disposable income?

5c. I never stated that there were not people who couldn’t help themselves. I agree that there must be a safety net to support these people. Your logic continuously increases the number of people who must be “caught” in the safety net until EVERYONE must be taken care of by THE STATE.

5d. Your remark about people at the “lower end of the IQ scale” being unable to enlist in the military is yet another elitist snob position. You see the military as some type of STATE RUN JOBS PROGRAM rather than a fighting force.

I’ve got to go to work now where my salary is capped only by my abilities and drive (are you familiar with the concept?) so my end of the discussion must stop for now. Take a deep breath ribocop and try not to get all lathered up in a rage as you contemplate your demise.

I’ll try to keep you in my prayers. May the peace of the Lord be with you now and forever. Amen.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Just how is Buffett taxes? By giving it all away. Seems like kind of a painful tax dodge. Gee, I don’t like that the government wants 40% of my money, so I will just get rid of it all so they can’t have it. It would seem that keeping 60% is better than keeping 0%.

 

[ribozyme]

1. Buffet is so phony that he is totally unwilling to follow his own prescription for helping the poor and most needy. He wants THE STATE to confiscate other people’s hard earned money to help others. He takes the big tax dodge to avoid paying hundreds of millions to THE STATE. This is so hypocritical that you must have missed it. But then again, isn’t that what you, Buffet, and the other elitists are all about: creating oppressive systems in the name of “helping others” without adversely impacting yourselves?

You are not addressing the fact that he is donating his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I see at least one positive aspect about his alleged tax evasion: he is making loopholes limpid to the general public, and hopefully benevolent policy makers will rectify this issue. Also, you have to remember that Warren Buffett isn’t the only way how can use loopholes in your world run by Milton Friedman. I guess that the money “saved” from the loopholes would be donated to charity instead of it being spent on opulent positional goods. Lastly, Warren Buffett has a “merger” salary of $100,000.
I wonder if you deem Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway to be “oppressive systems.”

Also here is an article about Buffett’s views:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Personally, I expect to live to 120, but conquering aging isn’t the subject of this thread.

1. What if somehow everyone in the world made at least $100,000 per year! Wouldn’t that be wonderful? The problem is that $100,000 would now be your new benchmark for poverty and your drivel would continue. You would bemoan the fact that death still occurs and people couldn’t be cryogenically preserved on such a meager salary. I’ve got to give it to you, you are a real piece of work, shoddy but still one of God’s creatures.

Right back at you too. I am only offended because* you *would say such a thing to me.

Do you honestly think that I am perfect? I sincerely believe I am a shoddy creature; I am merely a product of stochastic processes. Since I am the product of a random recombination of genes from my mother’s oocyte and father’s sperm during meiosis of the respective gametes and subsequent fusion, it is likely that I would be a shoddy creature. So I redound that remark back to you unless you were conceived in a different way.

I think it is possible for a person to save enough for cryonics if they make $100,000 per year. Alcor charges the same amount for preservation. But if people* want *to die, let them.

My question is not directed against your policy recommendations, but your belief that grievous human suffering is a part of God’s plan. You said yourself that God allows for inequality in ability, but seem extremely naive regarding its pernicious consequences. From my subjective perspective, God failed the human race and humanity has an ethical directive fix its problems. Unequivocally, this is a difficult task.

I only brought that unpalatable issue up because I do not believe that the some poor people are lazy. I believe that by being reticent about it would only yield irrational recrimination among the less fortunate as we would not be able to deracinate the roots of the problem. It is best not to go into pleonasms about that issue; instead tacitly acknowledging it is the best path. I will try to invoke that issue sparingly as it tends to evoke vituperation (especially from the liberals).

One more thing, no one advocates extreme redistribution. One can argue that extreme redistribution causes free-riding, corruption though administration of the system, lack of incentive for progress, etc. But empirically, the United States has the highest Gini coefficient in the developed world so it is a prescription for more egalitarianism. In addition, it is probably prudent to redistribute resources to the poor because it will placate them so they do not end up in prison, doing drugs, or committing crimes. The question, of course, is how to provide welfare. We will agree that a blank check to them is rather imprudent, and it has to be allocated in a way that prevents free riding. I do not have an answer to that question and it will require cogitation. Compare me to Marx if you wish, but I gravitate towards the views of John Maynard Keynes and Paul Krugman.

Yes, I adhere to the transhumanism agenda, but I will not defend the tenets of that diverse, yet small movement here. Much work needs to be done in order to make the means feasible and allow humanity to benefit from that.

While I advocate that (extremely utopian I must admit) philosophy, others can yen about the late 19th century, the Gilded Age, or have fantasies about living in Somalia.

 

[rlg94086]

In addition,** it is probably prudent to redistribute resources to the poor because it will placate them so they do not end up in prison, doing drugs, or committing crimes**. The question, of course, is how to provide welfare. We will agree that a **blank check to them is rather imprudent, and it has to allocate in a way that prevents free riding. I do not have an answer to that question and it will require cogitation. **Compare me to Marx if you wish, but I gravitate towards the views of John Maynard Keynes and Paul Krugman.

The welfare state has been cogitated many times. Whether the government pays with a check, food stamps, etc., it does not placate the poor to the point that they don’t do drugs or commit crimes. In fact, history shows it exacerbates the problem. And, salary caps are only tangentially related. A salary cap may actually hurt the poor.

BTW…you sound really, really angry. Just remember, stress may shorten your life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The welfare state has been cogitated many times. Whether the government pays with a check, food stamps, etc., it does not placate the poor to the point that they don’t do drugs or commit crimes. In fact, history shows it exacerbates the problem. And, salary caps are only tangentially related. A salary cap may actually hurt the poor.

BTW…you sound really, really angry. Just remember, stress may shorten your life.

And with this strategy we have abandoned Social Justice – welfare, food stamps, and so on do not end or reduce poverty, they merely make the poor more comfortable in their poverty.

We won’t implement a real Social Justice program – such as guarenteeing every child a first-class education, so they can get good jobs and get off welfare and food stamps and so on. Instead, we give them a poor excuse for education, habituate them to the dole, and condemn yet another generation to poverty.

 

[consumedconvert]

Actually, Distributism is not about the redistribution of money as much as the redistribution of capital (the stuff that makes money, like machines, etc.). If you think it’s socialism, then you haven’t read up about it. I suggest Belloc or Chesterton. They rail against both socialism and the nanny state, and yet they are strong distributists.

BTW, who said anything about sitting on one’s duff waiting for a government handout? That certainly is not the goal of distributism nor would it be the goal of theoretical salary caps. Distributism is a nuanced position. I suggest you read up on it in depth; if you think it’s socialism, you obviously have not or have misunderstood.

The ideal would be a nation of shopkeepers, business owners, small farmers, employee-owned companies, and small businesses everywhere–people who work hard because they either own their own business or work for a business owner they know and respect. SO the object is to avoid socialism and the nanny state, encourage people to work hard, but allow capital to be more equally distributed across many hands (not “STATE OWNERSHIP” or “NO OWNERSHIP”, but many independent owners). Hence, why the possibility of salary caps for big earners (either in real dollars or in proportion to what they pay their respective employees), and why fiscal policy that encourages entrepreneurship and the small local business over the worldwide mega-corp (see the other thread on this topic).

Recall a German monk who couldn’t “feel” the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the effects of Sanctifying Grace? Because he couldn’t “feel” them, he decided that they were not real at all and that they must just be a figment of everyone’s imagination for almost 1,500 years. Then he saw some idiot priest independently selling indulgences and decided that the Catholic Church was terrible and needed reformed. His idea of reform was to leave the Church founded on Peter and start a man-made church of his own.

I’m not comparing capitalism to the Church; but isn’t that how “reform” movements always end up? They leave the best for something woefully worse.

You just did. Out of bounds, and irrelevant; a false analogy.

I agree that there are some abuses in the entire compensation structure of many companies. This problem is corporate governance (or lack there of). Rather than trying to figure how to redistribute your money, I’d rather work for increased shareholder power so that those who actually own public companies can have a greater say in how they are operated.

Ah, a good idea–redistribution of power and ownership. i have nothing against this idea.

I’m all for helping the poor (and my charitable contributions go for that purpose) but is ruining the American system really going to make things better?

Many would argue that the American system is darn near ruin already. I think we will slowly watch it melt; one reason is capitalism; the other is high taxation. Our economy is based on rampant consumerism; when people don’t spend, it fails. Now we’ve got a negative savings rate. Doh! We can’t spend much longer, now can we? The other reason is that people’s savings are taxed, and extra earnings are taxed, thus encouraging the shop-till-you-drop mentality. Meanwhile credit card co.s get richer, and the foolish American public gets poorer via usurious interest rates. So, capitalism will melt down, probably in the next generation. It will either collapse completely or (perhaps more likely) lead to more and more disparity between rich and poor, and more government programs to bail out the growing lower class, thus the nanny state.

Policies that encourage the redistribution of capital among many private owners is justified and needed. Policies that discourage hoarding (above one mil, or above ten times the average you pay your employees, take your pick) are justified and needed. More real property in the hands of more people. It makes sense.

 

[ribozyme]

And with this strategy we have abandoned Social Justice – welfare, food stamps, and so on do not end or reduce poverty, they merely make the poor more comfortable in their poverty.

We won’t implement a real Social Justice program – such as guarenteeing every child a first-class education, so they can get good jobs and get off welfare and food stamps and so on. Instead, we give them a poor excuse for education, habituate them to the dole, and condemn yet another generation to poverty.

Believe me, future generations will have the means to deal with that problem, believe me. We will have the tools to prevent another generation of poverty. (I literally mean this.) The real question is whether we will use them. Of course, I am being cryptic in this post and will not elaborate further.

I do not know if we can blame the education system; I think the tools are available for education. For example, I learned most of my biology from reading a textbook Biology 5th Edition by Reece, Campbell, and Mitchell, and read some online textbooks to expand my curiosity.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Believe me, future generations will have the means to deal with that problem, believe me. We will have the tools to prevent another generation of poverty. (I literally mean this.) The real question is whether we will use them. Of course, I am being cryptic in this post and will not elaborate further.

Then how come we havn’t used those tools already? How come we have several generations on welfare, with an ingrained welfare ethic that rejects education and work?

I do not know if we can blame the education system; I think the tools are available for education. For example, I learned most of my biology from reading a textbook Biology 5th Edition by Reece, Campbell, and Mitchell, and read some online textbooks to expand my curiosity.

Two points:

If the education system is not educating the children – which is what we created it to do – we most certainly can blame the system. If you hired a man to put a roof on your house, and the roof leaked, would he not be responsible for fixing it?

Next, if self-education is the answer, why do we need to build schools and hire teachers?

 

[ribozyme]

Then how come we havn’t used those tools already? How come we have several generations on welfare, with an ingrained welfare ethic that rejects education and work?

I have my own answer to that question and I will be reticent about my views on that.

If the education system is not educating the children – which is what we created it to do – we most certainly can blame the system. If you hired a man to put a roof on your house, and the roof leaked, would he not be responsible for fixing it?

Next, if self-education is the answer, why do we need to build schools and hire teachers?

There are certain limitations of pedagogy; some are obvious and I will not state them here.

I did not say self-education is the answer; I am saying the knowledge for “interesting topics” are readily available in a developed country.

Again I meant what I said about future generations. I said we do not have the necessary tools yet.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have my own answer to that question and I will be reticent about my views on that.

But views don’t educate children. Right now, we have about a 30% failure to graduate rate among those who enter high school – and the worst schools are in the poorest districts.

There are certain limitations of pedagogy; some are obvious and I will not state them here.

If the schools and teachers can’t do the job, why pay them?

I did not say self-education is the answer; I am saying the knowledge for “interesting topics” are readily available in a developed country.

Which contributes what to the discussion? And how do kids who can’t read self-educate themselves?

Again I meant what I said about future generations. I said we do not have the necessary tools yet.

Actually, we do have them – but we don’t use them, and we have many other “tools” that are counterproductive.

 

[Al_Masetti]

But views don’t educate children. Right now, we have about a 30% failure to graduate rate among those who enter high school – and the worst schools are in the poorest districts.

If the schools and teachers can’t do the job, why pay them?

Which contributes what to the discussion? And how do kids who can’t read self-educate themselves?

Actually, we do have them – but we don’t use them, and we have many other “tools” that are counterproductive.

Absolutely right, Vern.

It takes only minutes to teach young children basic math and geometry and trigonometry and things like diagramming sentences. But what we find is that the kids are simply not taught these things OR these things are made overly and excessively complicated. Kids love working on puzzles and they can master these math and language skills easily. But the educational establishment and bureaucracy have worked overtime to create obstructions and to deny kids these bits of knowledge and education.

… Which is the reason why so many … perhaps a million or more … children are being home schooled by their parents.

Learning and teaching are not that difficult. Kids love it. Just look at the stuff they pick up on their own … particularly within the area of computer science where the establishment doesn’t have the ability to sabotage our youngsters. But our system has chosen to deny our kids the intellectual skills at the elementary level … skills that they need and can develop.

 

[ribozyme]

I have read your posts, and I will say that you sincerely care. I do think some of your fundamental assumptions from which you derive your views are flawed, but you do care. Your views are based on extremely panglossian assumptions, while I do not hold such optimistic sentiment.

I am not upset when I read your posts; however, I am upset with D317’s attitude regarding his delectation of the status quo, how he accepts it, and says it is part of God’s plan. I detest that regressive and uncompassionate perspective.

I understand that welfare states with an enormous amount of free riders is not sustainable indefinately. I doubt some proposed solutions would work, but the question of finding an ethical, yet practical solution evades me. My despair renders me vulnerable to radical utopian pablum such as the view that God will eventually save us.

 

[ribozyme]

Absolutely right, Vern.

It takes only minutes to teach young children basic math and geometry and trigonometry and things like diagramming sentences. But what we find is that the kids are simply not taught these things OR these things are made overly and excessively complicated. Kids love working on puzzles and they can master these math and language skills easily. But the educational establishment and bureaucracy have worked overtime to create obstructions and to deny kids these bits of knowledge and education.

… Which is the reason why so many … perhaps a million or more … children are being home schooled by their parents.

Learning and teaching are not that difficult. Kids love it. Just look at the stuff they pick up on their own … particularly within the area of computer science where the establishment doesn’t have the ability to sabotage our youngsters. But our system has chosen to deny our kids the intellectual skills at the elementary level … skills that they need and can develop.

I do not think the allegation of intentional obstruction can be buttressed empirically. I am not defending the current system; I am just pessimistic about all the proposed reforms. I do know that most people who are home-schooled might not understand rudimentary biology though as they might be influenced by their parent’s ideological bias.

 

[estesbob]

Your views are based on extremely panglossian assumptions, while I do not hold such optimistic sentiment.

I
. My despair renders me vulnerable to radical utopian pablum such as the view that God will eventually save us.

have my own answer to that question and I will be** reticent** about my views on that.

do not have an answer to that question and** it will require cogitation**

as we would not be able to** deracinate the roots** of the problem

There are certain limitations of** pedagogy**

I get a real hoot reading yor posts. Always sprinkled with pompous words and phrases and/or comments about how very smart you are(Why you taught yourslef biology by reading a biology book.!) Let me pass on a little advice:

D****on’t Use Big Words!

Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.

Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
** ** In other words, talk plainly, briefly, naturally, sensibly, truthfully, purely. Keep from slang; don’t put on airs; say what you mean; mean what you say. And, don’t use big words!"

abcsmallbiz.com/funny/big-words.html

Big Words Make You Sound Smart, Don’t They?

Many people think that they sound smarter when they use big words. The truth of the matter is that smart communicators use words that (a) they understand and (b) their readers are likely to understand.

The purpose of writing is to communicate. Communication is the process by which meaning is created and exchanged. If the person who reads your writing doesn’t understand what you are trying to say, no communication occurs when he or she reads your writing.

In order to communicate effectively, you have to use language properly, and you have to use language that people are likely to understand.

dailywritingtips.com/big-words-make-you-sound-smart-dont-they/

Hope this hasnt left you discombobulated.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not think the allegation of intentional obstruction can be buttressed empirically. I am not defending the current system; I am just pessimistic about all the proposed reforms. I do know that most people who are home-schooled might not understand rudimentary biology though as they might be influenced by their parent’s ideological bias.

I have a question for you. We’ve been teaching children to read and write for about 6,000 years. And earlier systems were much more difficult to learn than our modern ones (try multiplying MCXII by MMCCLIV, orreadingseveralpagesofscripticontiuosa.)

How is it we’ve suddenly and dramatically lost our ability to teach? How is it Little Johnny who lived several thousand years ago could learn thousands of hieroglyphic signs and read them, but today’s Little Johnny can’t read a simple, 26-letter alphabet?

 

[rlg94086]

Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.

Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
** ** In other words, talk plainly, briefly, naturally, sensibly, truthfully, purely. Keep from slang; don’t put on airs; say what you mean; mean what you say. And, don’t use big words!"

abcsmallbiz.com/funny/big-words.html

Indubitably!

In fact, since I do international business, I have to really “dumb down” my vocabulary. When speaking to very intelligent businessmen for whom English is not their first language, you have to keep it pretty simple.

 

[consumedconvert]

I have a question for you. We’ve been teaching children to read and write for about 6,000 years. And earlier systems were much more difficult to learn than our modern ones (try multiplying MCXII by MMCCLIV, orreadingseveralpagesofscripticontiuosa.)

How is it we’ve suddenly and dramatically lost our ability to teach? How is it Little Johnny who lived several thousand years ago could learn thousands of hieroglyphic signs and read them, but today’s Little Johnny can’t read a simple, 26-letter alphabet?

One answer is surely that little Johnny 2,000 years ago couldn’t read, unless he was in the minority.

 

[BamaRider]

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?

---

I’m late to this thread, but dang that was funny. No professor I ever knew worked 40 hours a week.