Wealth Distribution in the USA

Well let me remind you of the specific instances under discussion:

quote:

---

If someone is receiving a salary in the millions it is absolutely reasonable and appropriate to question whether the economic benefit that person provides to the business justifies that level of reward. If shareholders are not asking such questions of such people they darn well should be.

​

If the lowest paid workers are being paid so little that it is impossible for them to feed, clothe and house themselves, and thus continue in employment without welfare assistance, then it is absolutely reasonable and appropriate for society to ask whether those employees are providing the businesses that employ them with economic benefit that far outstrips the cost of the measly wages they pay. If government and societies are not asking why they should subsidise the employment costs of huge corporations they bloody well should be.

​

This notion that the economic benefit an employee brings be utterly and completely divorced from the reward they receive is a huge part of the problem at hand.

---

In the examples above do you that a link should exist? Are there real life examples where the link isn't present? Do you consider the absence of such a link to be probelmatic at all? Either quote me saying that salaries should be calculated on such a basis or admit that you are pursuing a straw man.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Divorced or not divorced. That is the question.I'd be interested to hear Percy's take on this.......

Its right here: How do you determine how much economic benefit they are providing so you can figure that it far outstrips their pay?

Some jobs are divorced from the economic benefit they provide, like a box-stacker, others are directly tied to it, like a used car salesman.

Not by me. In fact exactly the opposite. I keep pointing out that the economics of the market at the lower end of the pay scale has to be prevented from driving down wages to poverty levels whilst the lack of restraining forces at the higher end is completely unregulated and unfair and causing distortions.I'm afraid it's your insisting on relating economic benefit with pay rates that's making a mess of this discussion. Pay is set mostly by supply and demand, not by economic benefit to the company. Er, yes. Obviously. And this is where you are in error. This is because at the low end of the scale at least, wages are set by supply and demand - ie market forces, not economic benefit to the company.If the proposal is to set a minimum wage at a minimum economic level for the company, you have a problem because all companies will have a different calculation to make, but essentially the single minimum wage level does what you're asking.But where the minimum wage is too high, the local industry will die and imports will rise. Those jobs that can't be exported - mostly service industries - will stay but prices will rise. Your Big Mac will cost more, which is not necessarily a bad thing unless it builds inflation into the economy and wages decline again in real terms.It's not at all simple.

Hi Straggler,I really can't respond to most of what you say because most of the things you're trying to argue with me about I probably agree with you. Not that we probably don't also differ on many things, but I certainly don't hold the extreme views you keep accusing me of, and I certainly haven't been doing anything underhanded like trying to create strawmen of your views, as hopefully Tangle's and CS's very similar interpretations of what you've been saying has finally convinced you.I understand that you think there should be a link between a job's wages and that job's "economic benefit" to the company. I'm certain that in most cases no such link exists, and I disagree that there should be because I don't think a determination of most job's "economic benefit" is possible.I believe that wages are mostly determined by market forces. Unions and tariffs and minimum wage laws and so forth can also have an impact on salaries on the upside, and jobs disappearing or flowing oversees as well as cheap imports can have an impact on the downside, but mostly it's market forces. I'm just stating what I believe the evidence indicates to be true. This is not an argument for unfettered free markets or laissez faire capitalism.One can ask the question, "Should market forces be permitted to set wages?" and I would answer yes. One can also ask the question, "Should market forces be the sole determining factor in setting wages?" and I would answer, "No, but they should be the dominant one."You express a great deal of concern about the minimum wage, and this came up with Modulous, too. The problem with minimum wage laws is that they can't force employers to hire people. The law of supply and demand still holds. The more you charge for something the less people will buy, and this goes for jobs, too. Businesses will hire fewer people at $15/hour than they will at $10. It's very important that minimum wage increases be in line with inflation and with increases in the prevailing levels of standard of living, otherwise they'll do more harm than good. That old scourge unintended consequences is ever ready to pounce.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What?I think you may just have gone completely mad, so would you mind talking me through your reasoning?

If I thought you were more interested in understanding me than just having a joke at my expense, then I would.

Well maybe if you explain your meaning, and it is not dumb, the there won't be any joke.Alternatively, maybe if you try to explain your meaning, and it is dumb, then you can join in the laughter.Would you like to give it a go? If not, then we can draw our own conclusions.

Yeah but when you can't make a joke, then you tend to just not reply at all.So I don't see any reason for me to put any effort into replying to you; I'll either get made fun of or it will be for naught.But you can find some of my reasoning on the box-stackers at the end of Message 342. Used car salesmen often get paid purely on commission; that's the best example I could come up with at the time for a wage that's married to the economic benefit provided.

Well, no it isn't. But you won't argue for the case that it is. Yeah, you're caught in a dilemma where I'll point out that you're wrong if you are, but I won't if you're not. You're damned if you do, but you're not damned if you don't, so either way you shouldn't say anything.Oh ... wait ...

I think it's pretty straight forward - the direct value of a salesperson can be reasonably easily tracked, whilst the direct value of a box staker can't. What's your problem?

Because he didn't say "direct value", whatever that means, he said "economic benefit".If used car salesman A sells me a truck for $1000 more than used car salesman B would have done if it had been his turn, does that mean that A has benefited the economy by $1000 more than salesman B would have done? No, of course not. That's the difference of the amounts whereby they would have benefited their employer. If he'd said that, I'd have no quarrel with him.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that we're talking about being able to identifyi the direct value or economic benefit to a company. Not the economy as a whole.

Then perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that that's what we should say.