Income Inequality?

[Bill the Cat]

Anyone. Could a wage cap be helpful in any way to anyone? You can tie the maximum wage to the average worker's wage or not-- any way you like.

There is a benefit to someone in every exchange.

[Spartacus]

There is a benefit to someone in every exchange.

What would the benefit be in wage caps?

Could this be any more like pulling teeth? Holy guacamole, man! If you don't want to answer, just say so!

[Sparko]

If it doesn't make sense to you, it's because you have the moral imagination of a cartoon villain... or Ayn Rand protagonist.

Who is John Galt?

and I am a pirate not a toon.

But you are the one asking why someone would pay more than they can afford or you are worth, and it was your example. My answer is unless they WANT to go out of business, they would not pay you more than you are worth or they could afford.

And it almost always subverts something about that real-life scenario. Do you really think shepherds would leave a flock of 99 to scatter, unattended, to try to hunt down one lost sheep?

We are talking about a simple statement that the people hearing the parable could understand in order for it to make sense: The owner pays what he wants to because it is his property to do with what he wants to. The workers can take it or leave it.

I know you have a hard time agreeing with that because you have already solidified your position, but that is what it says and what it means.

Are you going to tell the government that it's unjust because it wants to give as much of a reward to a rank-and-file employee as to a CEO who has been working for the company since he graduated high school? Don't answer that question.

Answer this one instead: if God said that He wanted all eartlhy laborers to be compensated at the same rate regardless of how hard or long they worked or what sort of work they did, from burger-flipper to CEO, would you call that unjust?

But God doesn't say that does he? He says things like the landowner can do and pay what he wants. That if you don't work you don't eat. That the worker deserves his wages (and not that he deserves the wages he did not work for)

What you are proposing is nothing but socialism. It has already failed in every country it has been tried in. Capitalism works, socialism doesn't, no matter how nice you think it sounds.

[Bill the Cat]

What would the benefit be in wage caps?

Potentially better dividends to investors, perhaps more capital to expand, perhaps more capital to hire more people, perhaps more opportunity to provide bonuses, or perhaps to strictly line the pocket of the CEO with "incentives". There are several potential angles, Spart.

Could this be any more like pulling teeth? Holy guacamole, man! If you don't want to answer, just say so!

You are asking far too vague of a question. The answers are numerous, depending on how the upper management wants to distribute the savings.

[Cow Poke]

Potentially better dividends to investors, perhaps more capital to expand, perhaps more capital to hire more people, perhaps more opportunity to provide bonuses, or perhaps to strictly line the pocket of the CEO with "incentives". There are several potential angles, Spart.

On the other hand, it's kinda like professional sports figures -- if you want your team to win, you realize you may have to pay top bucks for the right players or coaches..... the shareholders may be HAPPY that the company stole a top CEO from a competitor by offering more money - in hopes of earning more money in dividends.

[Spartacus]

Potentially better dividends to investors, perhaps more capital to expand, perhaps more capital to hire more people, perhaps more opportunity to provide bonuses, or perhaps to strictly line the pocket of the CEO with "incentives". There are several potential angles, Spart.

You are asking far too vague of a question. The answers are numerous, depending on how the upper management wants to distribute the savings.

Are there any forms of a wage cap which you would support, if proposed in Congress?

[Bill the Cat]

Are there any forms of a wage cap which you would support, if proposed in Congress?

Just this one...

nba-salary-cap.png

[Sparko]

Just this one...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2419[/ATTACH]

I think we should start with capping congress and freezing wages for the federal government. Seems odd that no matter how bad the economy gets, they keep voting themselves pay raises (both democrats and republicans)

Let's start with them and see how it goes.

[Spartacus]

But you are the one asking why someone would pay more than they can afford or you are worth, and it was your example. My answer is unless they WANT to go out of business, they would not pay you more than you are worth or they could afford.

Alright then, let's add a little something to the scenario to see if that clarifies anything: your boss knows that your income has to support not only you, but your elderly parents, your sister, and her two kids. In other words, you're getting more money not because you deserve it based on your work, but because you need it. Is that unjust?

We are talking about a simple statement that the people hearing the parable could understand in order for it to make sense: The owner pays what he wants to because it is his property to do with what he wants to. The workers can take it or leave it.

I know you have a hard time agreeing with that because you have already solidified your position, but that is what it says and what it means.

You refuse to consider why the owner would want to do what he does. Furthermore, you fail to consider the original meaning of the parable r.e. Jews vs gentiles. You're willfully over-simplifying to suit your own (economic) ends instead of allowing complex texts to be, well, complex.

But God doesn't say that does he? He says things like the landowner can do and pay what he wants. That if you don't work you don't eat. That the worker deserves his wages (and not that he deserves the wages he did not work for)

What you are proposing is nothing but socialism. It has already failed in every country it has been tried in. Capitalism works, socialism doesn't, no matter how nice you think it sounds.

Communism is explicitly godless, and I am unaware of any socialist regime in history that has consistently invoked God; what I propose is not socialism, but the Mosaic law, which understood the Holy Land to be God's property and the Israelites his tenants-- except expressed in such a way as to annoy you as much as possible.

[Bill the Cat]

I think we should start with capping congress and freezing wages for the federal government. Seems odd that no matter how bad the economy gets, they keep voting themselves pay raises (both democrats and republicans)

Let's start with them and see how it goes.

Government employees on the GS schedule have not received a COLA raise in about 6 years. I used to be one, and am interviewing to be one again.

[Sparko]

Alright then, let's add a little something to the scenario to see if that clarifies anything: your boss knows that your income has to support not only you, but your elderly parents, your sister, and her two kids. In other words, you're getting more money not because you deserve it based on your work, but because you need it. Is that unjust?

It is his business and his money. If he wants to spend it on me, then how is that unjust? If he goes out of business just to pay me more money because I need it, then that is just stupidity on his part and in the end neither of us is making money.

You refuse to consider why the owner would want to do what he does. Furthermore, you fail to consider the original meaning of the parable r.e. Jews vs gentiles. You're willfully over-simplifying to suit your own (economic) ends instead of allowing complex texts to be, well, complex.

You KNOW what the parable says and what it means, you just don't want to admit you are wrong. I understand.

Communism is explicitly godless, and I am unaware of any socialist regime in history that has consistently invoked God; what I propose is not socialism, but the Mosaic law, which understood the Holy Land to be God's property and the Israelites his tenants-- except expressed in such a way as to annoy you as much as possible.

Socialism has nothing to do with or without God. It is an economic system. It is a failure.

The mosaic law says nothing about paying everyone the same no matter how hard they work. The Israelites worked for a living, and worked hard. They had no welfare or social programs other than family helping family. It was a capitalist society more so than ours is.

[Spartacus]

It is his business and his money. If he wants to spend it on me, then how is that unjust? If he goes out of business just to pay me more money because I need it, then that is just stupidity on his part and in the end neither of us is making money.

This is nothing more than economic might makes right. Is there anything more to your understanding of economic morality than that?

You KNOW what the parable says and what it means, you just don't want to admit you are wrong. I understand.

You're not even trying.

[QUOTE]Socialism has nothing to do with or without God. It is an economic system. It is a failure.

The mosaic law says nothing about paying everyone the same no matter how hard they work. The Israelites worked for a living, and worked hard. They had no welfare or social programs other than family helping family. It was a capitalist society more so than ours is.

You apparently don't even know what "capitalist" means-- ancient Israel had very strict laws about practices we would consider essential to capitalism. For example, it restricted the accumulation of property and mandated the forgiveness of debts-- on which you could never charge interest (try taking that to Wall Street). There was only so much "capital" a person could accumulate without falling afoul of the Law. Sustenance farming is most emphatically not capitalism.

[Cow Poke]

Alright then, let's add a little something to the scenario to see if that clarifies anything: your boss knows that your income has to support not only you, but your elderly parents, your sister, and her two kids. In other words, you're getting more money not because you deserve it based on your work, but because you need it. Is that unjust?

Not only is it unjust, it sets the owner up for a HUGE lawsuit.

[Sparko]

This is nothing more than economic might makes right. Is there anything more to your understanding of economic morality than that?

It is not economic might makes right. It is ownership allows you to decide what to do with what you own and spend your money the way you want to. If you want to give your money away, then I am OK with that. If you don't then that is your business too. I don't want people telling me how I can spend my paycheck and neither should you. You are welcome to send me all of your money and starve to death if you wish. I promise I won't call you unjust.

You're not even trying.

No. It is you who are not even trying. You deny scripture that is plain as day. You use exogesis to read into the text what you want it to say, and you also use salad-bar theology to pick and choose what parts you agree with and what parts you deny.

You apparently don't even know what "capitalist" means-- ancient Israel had very strict laws about practices we would consider essential to capitalism. For example, it restricted the accumulation of property and mandated the forgiveness of debts-- on which you could never charge interest (try taking that to Wall Street). There was only so much "capital" a person could accumulate without falling afoul of the Law. Sustenance farming is most emphatically not capitalism.

Restricted the accumulation of wealth? You mean like Salomon's wealth? Or Abraham's? Yes, it had rules against usury, which is outrageous interest. Yes, it had some forgiveness of debt. But it didn't force you to hire people at specific wages, or to spend your money the way they wanted you to spend it. In fact, they had slavery and indentured servants who worked just to have a place to live and something to eat. Try doing that in the USA. You whine about minimum wage? How about slavery? The rich got richer. The poor stayed poor. There was no welfare. If you didn't work you didn't eat. That is definitely NOT the type of economic system you have been arguing for.

[Spartacus]

It is not economic might makes right. It is ownership allows you to decide what to do with what you own and spend your money the way you want to. If you want to give your money away, then I am OK with that. If you don't then that is your business too. I don't want people telling me how I can spend my paycheck and neither should you. You are welcome to send me all of your money and starve to death if you wish. I promise I won't call you unjust.

The people who have money and property can do whatever they want with it-- how the heck is that NOT economic might makes right?

No. It is you who are not even trying. You deny scripture that is plain as day. You use exogesis to read into the text what you want it to say, and you also use salad-bar theology to pick and choose what parts you agree with and what parts you deny.

You mean exegesis, or, more likely, eisegesis. Try googling big words before you use them.

Restricted the accumulation of wealth? You mean like Salomon's wealth? Or Abraham's? Yes, it had rules against usury, which is outrageous interest. Yes, it had some forgiveness of debt. But it didn't force you to hire people at specific wages, or to spend your money the way they wanted you to spend it. In fact, they had slavery and indentured servants who worked just to have a place to live and something to eat. Try doing that in the USA. You whine about minimum wage? How about slavery? The rich got richer. The poor stayed poor. There was no welfare. If you didn't work you didn't eat. That is definitely NOT the type of economic system you have been arguing for.

If you didn't work you didn't eat, but you also had the opportunity to work to get enough food.

Abraham was before the Mosaic Law, and Solomon's wealth was one of the signs of his corruption.