Working hard to get ahead [Makers and Takers]

[vern_humphrey]

you’re not understanding me here. Market share is relative, there has to be a loser. If everyone in every business worked harder, that will not mean everyone will get a pay rise.

Ah, I see your problem – your model of economics is a zero-sum game. And you don’t understand that “market share” is not based on a fixed market.

Through open competition, businesses get better (or go under). Through competition, they deliver more and better goods and services and expand the economy. If everyone gets better at what they do, even if they don’t gain appreciably in market share, the market grows. And everyone benefits.

But what if that’s standard practice across an industry. Those employees will have nowhere to go.

Your seem to be using a static analytical model. Use a dynamic model. What was standard last year is not standard this year. Competition means change or die – the company that neglects its highly productive employees will be eaten by the company that hires them away.

but *you’re *not content with them doing that…

Wrong. I want people to maximize their talents – if one’s talent is as a craftsman or mechanic, one should seek to become the best craftsman or mechanic one can be – and such people often make a good deal more than middle managers in corporations.

That may be true, but it’s not reason enough to base a tax scheme on such assumptions.

Why not? You want to base tax schemes on the fallacious assumption that people should be penalized for hard work and rewarded for indolence.

For many people, the particulars of their jobs is what motivates them. Why should a teacher be obliged to become principal if teaching is what they enjoy and do well? Why should a salesman feel obliged to become team leader if the interaction with customers is what they like doing, and what they’re good at?

Each person should seek to maximize his or her God-given talents. If you can honestly say, “That’s as far as I can go,” then that’s as far as you can go. But if you lie to yourself when you say that, you are hardly a person to admire.

Out of interest, how much do you think a 40 year old man of average intelligence should be earning?

By 40 he should be making about twice the national per capita mean income.

 

[strngrnrth]

And meanwhile back in the midlde of the road I want to talk about two definitions of increasing wealth. One definition is that wealth means having more than others have, which is obviously not possible for everyone at the same time. Another is that it means having more than you will ever need, which is possible for everyone if total productivity is high.
Socially, not everyone can be rich because someone will be considered poor and a failure but materially everyone can be rich if the market produces enough and no one stops anyone from getting some, and the disabled and otherwise disadvantaged have people they can count on to help them.
But when people with disadvantages such as disabilities have no one much better off than they are to help them, then a social program could step in and give them what they need to become productive and able to keep what they make. Yet this would involve taxation, which would lead some people to feel they are better off producing a little less to stay in a lower bracket. Private charity might be able to help everyone, but what if hard times make people nervous and there just isn’t enough donated? I think there should be some, small-scale, limited social programs for the really needy: the very disabled, disaster victims, people who lost everything in a robbery or other attack, people fleeing abuse, and homeless people who just need short-term emergency help to get to where they are employable, and of course some veterans’ benefits. I also think luck goes the way it goes and somepeople have tried hard and failed to make the market reward them. We should be compassionate toward the needy. We should never assume someone isn’t trying or doesn’t have anything to offer. Then we should go pound that pavement and find a better job as soon as we have time.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I believe it was Geoffry of Monmouth who described Richard the Lion Hearted at the seige of Acre. “With shot from the walls, they brake his engine. But he builded it up again, and by dint of repeated blows he smashed the Accursed Tower.”

How about the freedom to keep the fruits of your own labor? How about the freedom to invest that 15.3% as you see fit? How about the freedom to enjoy your own savings in your old age?

How about the freedom to live in a decent home with your family, have your kids go to decent schools and not be one serious illness away from bankruptcy-even with insurance? How about being able to live in that decent house without having to work three jobs to make the payments-and never see your family? How about the freedom of a salary that actually goes up when the cost of living goes up, instead of one where your raise is less than the increase in your health care premiums?

The middle class in America is rapidly becoming what used to be the lower class and nobody wants to talk about those freedoms being lost. But try and take a few dollars away from people who already are so wealthy that they’re buying gold laminated toilets so that we can pay for children and veterans to have decent healthcare and everyone starts screaming about “wealth redistribution”.

Ok, rant over… carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of liberals.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

How about the freedom to live in a decent home with your family, have your kids go to decent schools and not be one serious illness away from bankruptcy-even with insurance? How about being able to live in that decent house without having to work three jobs to make the payments-and never see your family? How about the freedom of a salary that actually goes up when the cost of living goes up, instead of one where your raise is less than the increase in your health care premiums?

The middle class in America is rapidly becoming what used to be the lower class and nobody wants to talk about those freedoms being lost. But try and take a few dollars away from people who already are so wealthy that they’re buying gold laminated toilets so that we can pay for children and veterans to have decent healthcare and everyone starts screaming about “wealth redistribution”.

Ok, rant over… carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of liberals.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Amolibri]

**The middle class in America is rapidly becoming what used to be the lower class and nobody wants to talk about those freedoms being lost. But try and take a few dollars away from people who already are so wealthy that they’re buying gold laminated toilets so that we can pay for children and veterans to have decent healthcare and everyone starts screaming about “wealth redistribution”. **
Ok, rant over… carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of liberals.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

:clapping: :tiphat:

 

[vern_humphrey]

How about the freedom to live in a decent home with your family, have your kids go to decent schools and not be one serious illness away from bankruptcy-even with insurance? How about being able to live in that decent house without having to work three jobs to make the payments-and never see your family? How about the freedom of a salary that actually goes up when the cost of living goes up, instead of one where your raise is less than the increase in your health care premiums?

Easy to do – convince the government to hold down inflation (if government doesn’t drive inflation up, you don’t need a cost of living increase!!). reduce taxes (so you can actually live on one salary), remove the roadblocks that keep you from having decent healthcare (enact MSAs, allow shopping for health insurance across state lines, allow small businesses to band together to bargain for health insurance for their employees, and so on.)

The middle class in America is rapidly becoming what used to be the lower class and nobody wants to talk about those freedoms being lost. But try and take a few dollars away from people who already are so wealthy that they’re buying gold laminated toilets so that we can pay for children and veterans to have decent healthcare and everyone starts screaming about “wealth redistribution”.

The Parable Of The Boys Who Robbed The Farm.

Two boys were robbing a farm. The farmer caught them and tied them up in the barn.

He dragged one boy outside and said, “You were stealing grapes!!” He pulled the boy’s pants down and started shoving grapes where you should never shove grapes. The boy began laughing.

“What are you laughing at? Doesn’t this hurt?”

The boy said, “Well, yeah, it hurts. But the other guy was stealing watermelons!”

This is the theory of the Politics of Envy – we will laugh when the government pushes grapes up our exhaust pipe, if we think someone else is going to get watermelons.

Ok, rant over… carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of liberals.

I don’t bash liberals – I merely point out how the Politics of Envy doesn’t make sense.

We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity – all the things you complained of in your first paragraph are due to counter-productive government policies, which we all have to pay for, one way or another.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Easy to do – convince the government to hold down inflation (if government doesn’t drive inflation up, you don’t need a cost of living increase!!). reduce taxes (so you can actually live on one salary), remove the roadblocks that keep you from having decent healthcare (enact MSAs, allow shopping for health insurance across state lines, allow small businesses to band together to bargain for health insurance for their employees, and so on.)

I don’t bash liberals – I merely point out how the Politics of Envy doesn’t make sense.

We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity – all the things you complained of in your first paragraph are due to counter-productive government policies, which we all have to pay for, one way or another.

My taxes aren’t what is taking the greater portion of my salary-the greatest portion of my salary goes to housing, utilities and food.

I don’t envy anyone-I just want ALL income taxed as income. That is fair to everyone.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

My taxes aren’t what is taking the greater portion of my salary-the greatest portion of my salary goes to housing, utilities and food.

I don’t envy anyone-I just want ALL income taxed as income. That is fair to everyone.

Well said. Funny how right-wingers who operate from greed throw envy at people who merely point out their greed and wish to place a minor check on it.

 

[mary_bobo]

How about the freedom to live in a decent home with your family, have your kids go to decent schools and not be one serious illness away from bankruptcy-even with insurance? How about being able to live in that decent house without having to work three jobs to make the payments-and never see your family? How about the freedom of a salary that actually goes up when the cost of living goes up, instead of one where your raise is less than the increase in your health care premiums?

With all due respect, Fitz, how are you not free to live in a decent house, send your kids to decent schools? I don’t understand your statement. We are not promised anything in this life. We have to work for it and sometimes we have to settle for less than we would like because we can’t afford it. Where are these freedoms promised to us?

The middle class in America is rapidly becoming what used to be the lower class and nobody wants to talk about those freedoms being lost. But try and take a few dollars away from people who already are so wealthy that they’re buying gold laminated toilets so that we can pay for children and veterans to have decent healthcare and everyone starts screaming about “wealth redistribution”.

Ok, rant over… carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of liberals.

Seems in your mind if someone disagrees with what you say, they are bashing liberals. Not so. How does my having something you can’t afford (hypotheticallY take away your freedom to work harder to earn it for yourself if that is what you want? Class envy is an ugly thing and the mantra of taking from those who have earned it for themselves, no matter how rich they might be, does not square with me.

 

[mary_bobo]

How about the freedom to live in a decent home with your family, have your kids go to decent schools and not be one serious illness away from bankruptcy-even with insurance? How about being able to live in that decent house without having to work three jobs to make the payments-and never see your family? How about the freedom of a salary that actually goes up when the cost of living goes up, instead of one where your raise is less than the increase in your health care premiums?

With all due respect, Fitz, how are you not free to live in a decent house, send your kids to decent schools? I don’t understand your statement. We are not promised anything in this life. We have to work for it and sometimes we have to settle for less than we would like because we can’t afford it. Where are these freedoms promised to us?

The middle class in America is rapidly becoming what used to be the lower class and nobody wants to talk about those freedoms being lost. But try and take a few dollars away from people who already are so wealthy that they’re buying gold laminated toilets so that we can pay for children and veterans to have decent healthcare and everyone starts screaming about “wealth redistribution”.

Ok, rant over… carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of liberals.

Seems in your mind if someone disagrees with what you say, they are bashing liberals. Not so. How does my having something you can’t afford (hypotheticallY take away your freedom to work harder to earn it for yourself if that is what you want? Class envy is an ugly thing and the mantra of taking from those who have earned it for themselves, no matter how rich they might be, does not square with me.

 

[mary_bobo]

How about the freedom to live in a decent home with your family, have your kids go to decent schools and not be one serious illness away from bankruptcy-even with insurance? How about being able to live in that decent house without having to work three jobs to make the payments-and never see your family? How about the freedom of a salary that actually goes up when the cost of living goes up, instead of one where your raise is less than the increase in your health care premiums?

With all due respect, Fitz, how are you not free to live in a decent house, send your kids to decent schools? I don’t understand your statement. We are not promised anything in this life. We have to work for it and sometimes we have to settle for less than we would like because we can’t afford it. Where are these freedoms promised to us?

The middle class in America is rapidly becoming what used to be the lower class and nobody wants to talk about those freedoms being lost. But try and take a few dollars away from people who already are so wealthy that they’re buying gold laminated toilets so that we can pay for children and veterans to have decent healthcare and everyone starts screaming about “wealth redistribution”.

Ok, rant over… carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of liberals.

Seems in your mind if someone disagrees with what you say, they are bashing liberals. Not so. How does my having something you can’t afford (hypotheticallY take away your freedom to work harder to earn it for yourself if that is what you want? Class envy is an ugly thing and the mantra of taking from those who have earned it for themselves, no matter how rich they might be, does not square with me.

 

[Amolibri]

Gosh, mary, we heard you the first time!

The mindset of “taking away” rather than the “common good” is a very tough one to change…that’s for sure. The gov’t DOES (or should) work for that purpose…the common good. The definition of that term is where people disagree…and how to arrive at who contributes what and/or how much.

(those to whom much is given, much is expected, no?)
just my :twocents:

 

[vern_humphrey]

My taxes aren’t what is taking the greater portion of my salary-the greatest portion of my salary goes to housing, utilities and food.

All of which are dramatically influenced by taxes and other government policy.

I don’t envy anyone-I just want ALL income taxed as income. That is fair to everyone.

Are you prepared to pay the same tax as your wealthy neighbor? Or even the same percentage – with no deductions?

 

[mary_bobo]

Gosh, mary, we heard you the first time!

The mindset of “taking away” rather than the “common good” is a very tough one to change…that’s for sure. The gov’t DOES (or should) work for that purpose…the common good. The definition of that term is where people disagree…and how to arrive at who contributes what and/or how much.

(those to whom much is given, much is expected, no?)
just my :twocents:

Sory about that. Computer glitch.

 

[jmcrae]

Seems in your mind if someone disagrees with what you say, they are bashing liberals. Not so. How does my having something you can’t afford (hypotheticallY take away your freedom to work harder to earn it for yourself if that is what you want? Class envy is an ugly thing and the mantra of taking from those who have earned it for themselves, no matter how rich they might be, does not square with me.

Most people who “earn it for themselves” used other people’s labour to do so, though. Let’s face it, your CEO is not earning $5,000.00 an hour for the company making phone calls to his friends and playing Solitaire on his computer.

You and everyone who works with you is earning that money. He’s collecting it, because he’s the one the customers are writing their cheques out to, and then he doles you out what he thinks he can get away with paying you.

He’s rich, not because he’s “earning something” all by his little own self, but rather, because he’s organized a company (that is, you and the other people who work with you) to earn it for him.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Most people who “earn it for themselves” used other people’s labour to do so, though. Let’s face it, your CEO is not earning $5,000.00 an hour for the company making phone calls to his friends and playing Solitaire on his computer.

If that’s what he’s making, that’s what he’s earning.

A thing (including a CEO’s labor) is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller will accept. If the owners of the company offer him $5,000 an hour and he accepts, then the only parties with any standing to judge that transaction have decreed he **is **earning the money.

You and everyone who works with you is earning that money. He’s collecting it, because he’s the one the customers are writing their cheques out to, and then he doles you out what he thinks he can get away with paying you.

Try this – go to the stockholders and offer to do his job for half his pay. See if they accept your assurances that you can do the job as well as he can.

He’s rich, not because he’s “earning something” all by his little own self, but rather, because he’s organized a company (that is, you and the other people who work with you) to earn it for him.

The difference being, he has skills none of the other employees have. And the stockholders are willing to pay him to exercise those skills on their behalf.

 

[jmcrae]

Try this – go to the stockholders and offer to do his job for half his pay. See if they accept your assurances that you can do the job as well as he can.

I probably could. I’m just not rich enough yet to buy the company.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I probably could. I’m just not rich enough yet to buy the company.

Have faith in yourself. Borrow the money.

 

[mary_bobo]

Most people who “earn it for themselves” used other people’s labour to do so, though. Let’s face it, your CEO is not earning $5,000.00 an hour for the company making phone calls to his friends and playing Solitaire on his computer.

You and everyone who works with you is earning that money. He’s collecting it, because he’s the one the customers are writing their cheques out to, and then he doles you out what he thinks he can get away with paying you.

He’s rich, not because he’s “earning something” all by his little own self, but rather, because he’s organized a company (that is, you and the other people who work with you) to earn it for him.

I agree with what you say. That is how business works. No where did I say this person was earning it all by himself. Businesses make money under good guidance and good employees. And as far as paying someone what he thinks he can get away with, that, IMO, is poppycock. A job pays what the employer is willing to pay and the worker is willing to work for. Again, that is how business works. You sound so cynical and your comments, with all due respect, smack of class envy. That is not an attractive trait. God bless.

 

[cynic]

Ah, I see your problem – your model of economics is a zero-sum game. And you don’t understand that “market share” is not based on a fixed market.

Through open competition, businesses get better (or go under). Through competition, they deliver more and better goods and services and expand the economy. If everyone gets better at what they do, even if they don’t gain appreciably in market share, the market grows. And everyone benefits.
.

This assumes that larger markets mean higher turnover, when a larger market could just mean more competitors. It also assumes that a higher turnover will be passed on to non-management staff, when most employers would prefer to expand the business and employ more people rather than pay existing employees more (that and increase their end of year bonuses).

Your seem to be using a static analytical model. Use a dynamic model. What was standard last year is not standard this year. Competition means change or die – the company that neglects its highly productive employees will be eaten by the company that hires them away.
.

There are employment sectors where pay is fairly standard and doesn’t budge. Service jobs in particular (waiting tables, shop assistants). Employers in these industries would rather go short staffed than use pay as means to attract employees. Do you actually think employers want wage competition?

Why not? You want to base tax schemes on the fallacious assumption that people should be penalized for hard work and rewarded for indolence.
.

Next time you run into a 40 year old mechanic, truck driver, builder or labourer earning less than you think they should, make sure to tell them they’re indolent.

Each person should seek to maximize his or her God-given talents. If you can honestly say, “That’s as far as I can go,” then that’s as far as you can go. But if you lie to yourself when you say that, you are hardly a person to admire.
.

I disagree with the maximize part. Almost nobody is doing as much as they could be. Even you aren’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t ever get to go “Hunting, shooting, riding, backpacking, fishing”. It’s like you’ve formulated your ideas in a vacuum that ignores the fact that we are all human (which you *will *interpret as lazy)

By 40 he should be making about twice the national per capita mean income.

So that’s about 120K (U.S), or $460 a week at a 20% tax rate. How many mechanics or craftsman could afford $460 a week. You* know* what this would do to a lot of people don’t you.