Having a maximum wage is a good idea

>having a maximum wage is a good idea

Why would a radical centre of centrist say that?

saw this as well, not sure what to think.

To play doubles advocate, why is it a bad idea?

How would you make this work in the case of business owners? If you run your own store, if you're an electrician, if you rent properties, then should you have a cap on your profits (revenue minus costs)? This kind of thinking only makes sense if you can imagine one company, i.e., the state.

the state imposing its will upon the people

Maximum wage doesn't make sense, but I honestly think every corporation should have profit sharing relative to the income generated by every member of the corporation.

Like I'd much rather get some shares and dividends to do with as I please than insurance or retirement benefits. Let me handle that on my own.

>having a minimum wage is a good idea

The state is supposed to impose the will of the people. So here it would be the state imposing the will of the majority of the people on all the people.

Well I guess we don't choose to have roads or 911 either but you don't see people crying socialism at the use or gov. maintenance of those.

Imagine yourself opening a store. Your "wage" are the profits, revenue minus various expenses. Now in this context, the profit (the business owner's wage) is capped by some number or you obviously need to elaborate on this scheme.

I think a soft max wage is a good one. One set up by the culture of the people and not forced by the government. I see more benefit of a soft limit since those resources could then be funnled back into the company for R&D, employee salary, benefits, etc. This is very common in Japanese companies but again, it's a soft limit and isn't anything that's actually forced by the government.

Removes impetus for successful entrepreneurship and, speaking from a libertarian point of view, the government should have no right to determine what a wage a person should be paid for voluntary transactions. It also wouldn't significantly improve the situation, as the vast, vast majority of wealth increases for those on the echelon of wealth occur in capital gains which aren't wages, and to the extent that it would work, would make the country that implemented it wildly noncompetitive.

Sargon is such a faggot. Does anybody knows where he stands on Corbyn, or Labour in its current state vs the Tories?

He didn't. lol
To be specific, he followed up that by saying he doesn't know much about economics to say if it actually would be or not, and asked those who did to say in the comments.

In short. OP is a dumbass.

It makes sense to nationalise aspects of the economy that naturally become monopolised, like roads or train tracks. But you can't apply wage slave thinking to every sector of the economy, like small business for example.

the maintenance of racial purity is the ultimate goal of the state
for this purpose, it needs to be able to impose itself

would just probably end up destroying jobs as employers seek more automation. also, enforcing would be a bitch.

OK, he said it seems like a good idea but wants other opinions, Sargon dick rider.

>price fixing is a good idea

Are you saying it isn't?

In the context of OP it's 20 times the lowest paid employee. So if you are a single employee business, i.e. just you, no cap. If you have 1 employee and pay him 10.00 an hour (7.00 if female) you can only pay yourself 200.00 an hour.

That's my understanding of it anyway.

See
It only makes sense if you're a wage slave.

>It makes sense to nationalise aspects of the economy that naturally become monopolised

I think it makes more sense to nationalize what is necessary, and vices.

Free market capitalism + crown corporations for the necessities and vices is the best system you could possibly have. Government would simply be an oversight on those crown corporations so they can't get out of hand.

Everyone should have the same income and benefits. Problem eternally solved.

I could get on board with 100 million $ wage maximum, anything more than that is just ludicrous and wasteful

>you can only pay yourself 200.00 an hour.
And then where does the rest of the profit go?

go back to bumfuckistan commie

It is

>100 million $ wage maximum, anything more than that is just ludicrous and wasteful

i'm sure you determined this totally-not-arbitrary number through a rigorous scientific process of research and its definitely not just a random high number that you selected on a whim, right?

Back into the company, I would presume. Either a warchest, r&d, resources, expansion, raise for your 1 employee (which then gives you a raise too), or what have you. Come on Leaf, use a little creativity.

yup

what about if a small buisness owner sells his company, how the fuck would that work, or, what about his stock holdings in his own company. wonderful idea, impossible and would just infringe upon peoples rights.

i don't believe you

SMEs will never reach anything close to the jewish CEO pays you see in the newspapers

if you get 20 times minimum wage, you still go home with more than a million per year

From my understanding, stock bonuses and the like aren't considered when calculating "max salary" as it is outside of the base pay. So another way higher ups can go around it is just give themselves phat stock options and low salary.

can you even math?

>Back into the company
What if you don't want to expand?

Why does this fucktard speak about economics when he doesn't know shit?

Warchest. Unless your company is a non-profit you can keep all of the extra earnings in a "company" account for use on company expenditures or in case you don't have a stellar year to keep yourself afloat.

What liberals don't understand is that the wages that are paid to CEOs are so big because that is how much that person is worth to the company. Business is competitive and if the company deems the person worthy enough and having a large enough impact on their profits to pay a multi million dollar salary, then it is their right. Simple supply and demand. Not to mention, a large majority of CEO "salary" comes from stock options that incentivize the CEO to act in the best interest of the company to raise their stock value. Incredibly high wages for certain people isn't some banking cabal scheme controlled by the (((them)))

Lots more independent contractors

He doesn't. He just made an offhand comment about it and everyone who rides his dick spread it as gospel.

Also a pay cap is a dumb idea. Better would be to actually put our anti trust laws back in practice, break up the mega corps. No one wins when competition shrinks because companies buy each other out.

None of the current multi nationals got their power and wealth because they had a good product people wanted. They got there through collusion with the government.

>implying all of us are free market lolbertarians and not national socialists.

Fuck you trying to divide wn.

There should be a maximum wage then jews would fuck off

>Simple supply and demand.

That shit hasn't applied to the large companies for a long time thanks to collusion with the gov.

States are people too my friend.

Corporations are persons too.

>What if you don't want to expand?
You'll be outcompeted by someone who will.

Maybe in the overall market. I'm talking about just the CEOs. There aren't particularly many people fit to be a high level executive for a large company, so the market is small. Companies need to pay these certain people a lot of money to keep them at the company, or they could lose them

>warchest
What if you wanted to invest the money that goes above the threshold in stocks of another company? You wouldn't be able to get the dividends from your investment.

In fact, say you sit on a million bucks right now, and you want to invest it somewhere. Beyond a certain threshold it wouldn't make sense because your dividends are capped.

yeah well you're a faggot anyway

>You'll be outcompeted by someone who will.
You're thinking in terms of pyramids schemes. If your niche tends to be monopolised it should be nationalised anyway imo, and there should be regulations on anti-competitive business practices by the larger corporations.

says the kike calling for a maximum wage that he pulled out of his ass, lel

>You wouldn't be able to get the dividends from your investment
This is usually why the "max wage" is really a "max salary" argument to prevent people getting jewed out of their investments. Because without investments other companies won't have the capital to succeed which would fuck over the economy even harder than Clinton could have dreamed.

I was born here friendo. Lived here all my life.

>There aren't particularly many people fit to be a high level executive for a large company,

Horseshit. A lot of them are chosen purely for the look, or sometimes at fucking random. or nepotism, or because it's "their turn".

Yea some are actually competent, but it isn't the majority.

Same with big investors. Over the long run, none of them even manage to beat the market by a noticeable margin.

But as a small business owner, the profit at the end of the day, is your dividend. For employees, you could circumvent the cap with stock options unless that was capped as well.

>letting the government under any circumstance control how much a job is worth

NO YOU COMMUNISTS I'M SICK OF THIS CRAP

>doubles advocate

Newfag

Idiot

What do you think your wage is? It can increase, even if what you're doing hasn't changed by much.

The bleeding heart libs would then say, "Just pay your employees more if you want to pay yourself more you elitist asshole! #blm #feminism #shesinme". So then we go into the next issue if we don't want to pay our employee(s) more, what happens if we "break the law" and pay ourselves over 20 times their salary. Is it a percentage base fine? Jail time? Diversity quota?

>state cant force businesses/people to have a pay cap
>state can force businesses/people to pay people a certain wage
explain

That may be true, but you should checkem

It is nice how you people are so ready to protect Soros and other nice people interests.
Overblown wages is their tool to lure and control more people.

I think he dislikes Corbyn a lot, but acts surprised whenever Corbyn says or does anything that he agrees with.

>dislikes Corbyn a lot
K. Seems like his ideal candidate. Anti-Establishment, leftist, not strongly Eurocentric, and doesn't seem that concerned abut political correctness.

I don't see why he would dislike him, but outright supporting him would alienate the vast majority of his audience who are libertarian, or conservative, but mostly want to watch him make fun of lefties, specifically, feminists and SJWs.

It isn't, when people horde SO much money that it effectively cripples the ability of the mint, the federal reserve AND the people working for that owner to have a reasonable wage, don't you think something should be done? what's the point of hording so much money just for bragging rights? yeah sure you make sure your family and their family have a comfortable existence but all your doing then is stifling innovation by giving future generations a pillow instead of the same conditions that forced your dad to work hard and earn billions in the first place.

Maximum wage should be $999,999,999 of total assets over a lifetime, the billionaire class is what got us where we are today, fucked, and like any single person is going to earn a billion dollars on this board.

No I'm not saying the state SHOULD take money past a billion, but there comes a time when you have to think to yourself "wow I have all the money necessary for future generations of my family for the next 500 years if they spend wisely" why the fuck would you want anything else,anything past a billion is just fucking hording, it makes me sick that there is such thing as a billionaire class.

People in these arguments don't understand that you are paid based on the value you contribute to the business not what is consider a "fair" or "livable" wage.

High wage earners are often highly educated (lawyers, doctors, bankers, consultants) and either demand a high wage through scarcity and lost wages pursuing education, or through direct value creation.

If I'm an investment banker with industry connections and bring x million in revenue to my company I can demand a high wage. If the company or business I work for doesn't pay me the labor market determined wage, I would switch companies.

Herein lies the issue with having a maximum wage. It disincentivizes people pursuing high wage, and thus high value, careers as well as direct value creation.

For example if the maximum wage is set at $50/hr, why would I bother putting in extra effort previously associated with a higher wage? I would merely put in effort adequate to earn the $50/hr and spend the rest of my time/effort in leisure or pursuing hobbies or whatever else I preferred.

This on a macro scale would decrease economic growth in the long-run and essentially make us worse off in the future. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see having a maximum wage is a shit idea spread by people who are insecure with others making more than them.

corbyn's plan was you can't make more than 20x than that of the lowest paid employee in the company.

Let's assume that companies hire all 3rd party to take care of maintenance and cleaning,

that probably leaves a receptionist or an entry level job, say someone who makes 30,000 a year,

30,000 x 20 = 600,000 a year cap.

So if the CEO wants to make more than 600k a year, he has to increase the lowest paid employee's salary up higher.

20x is way too low though, at least it should be 250x, because jobs in large companies or small companies are not even close to being equal in skill, talent or experience.

30k x 250 is still only 7.5 million a year. i can understand this as a policy for publicly traded companies somewhat, but not for private business. it just doesn't make sense to cap it for the owners.

Sorry pal but there's only so much money in the world, and when you begin to horde it like the billionaire class do you ACTIVELY begin to have a negative effect on the economy by keeping that money and not spending it. If no one spends money on the economy then it's going to go to shit, billionaires did not get rich by spending money they inherited it from daddy, or mummy, or grandparents.

If you can't spend money then you are a worthless civillian who should be thrown out of the country, IMO money should have a time limit over $999,999,999 total assets in a life time so the rich have insentive to either pay the grunts THAT MAKE THEM MONEY more or contribute to the economy more.

Hey I don't have a problem with millionaires most of them that I've met are really down to earth and thankful for their luck and hard work combo, I have an issue with the billionaire class as Bernie called them.

I'd like a maximum wage because I will never ever be rich enough for it to affect me and I would arguably benfit from it. On the other hand I can see why they'd be pissed. By this logic though why is there a minimum wage, then?

Expect corporations being split up just to increase the wages of least-earning employees. Unorthodox, of course, but completely natural when such a regressive policy is implemented.

Also, expect CEOs to more frequently take stock options and limiting the position more to those willing to take more risks. Companies whose stocks don't strongly outpace inflation will also have difficulty finding competent CEOs because their enumeration will be substantially cut.

>....a radical centre of centrist say that?
lol

Your argument makes no sense. While true that marginal propensity to consume decreases as income and wealth increase, the wealthy invest at a much higher rate than lower income individuals which offsets the the fact they don't spend as much on the dollar.

The "grunts" aren't the ones who "make" the business money. Imagine iPhone in the your pocket, who made that? It was Apple not the Chinese plant that physically assembled it.

Imagine if that Chinese plant said "pay us more cause we are the ones MAKING YOU MONEY!" Apple would laugh and tell them to fuck off and get someone else to assemble their product. More value comes from idea creation and capital investment than labor alone.

If you actually want to argue for things to be "fairer" argue for capital gains being taxed at the marginal income level not whatever retarded shit you're saying now.

I think it's a decent way to shut up Marxists. Also it doesn't stop the company from growing bigger and expanding. The company and the owner will be worth different amounts. And when the owner is done and wants to retire he can sell the company he can sell all the assets and retire with a ton of cash. It will promote you too grow your company more, so you can hire more people.

And it should be more of a logarithmic thing ie; ln(number of workers^(minwage*growth of company))*(average wage of employee)
Eg;
Ln(50workers^($11.20*1.12))*($22.50)=$1104

Not sure if the should be per hour or per day but it's fare enough If the company can afford it.

>he doesn't know much about economics
Rather humble of him to say this, but considering how it is perhaps the most important consideration to have in politics, confessing your ignorance of it is to make your opinion seem rather empty.

Nah, you get a wage because you can come and you go as you pease and you have no stake and nothing invested in the company. The only risk you gave was your time.
Investors put money in, they could lose it, so if the company makes a profit, they get the rewards. Keep in mind they might invest in a dozen companies and only one makes it.

>I think it's a decent way to shut up Marxists.
Nope. Means of production still aren't controlled by workers. Property still exits. These are not people you want to please, as compromise with them not only makes everything worse, but emboldens them.

Then it will shut up moderates. I honestly could care less about how much the rich exploites us but they can only go so far before they realize their factories are up in flames and the workers have walked out on them.

...

Limousine Liberals, and Champagne Socialists should be on the top of every RWSS list.

dont do it pol

>Sorry pal but there's only so much money in the world
Idiot.

>This guy is 25% nig.
Cunt got lucky.

does any economist actually think this is a good idea?

pathetic

Hey, if you got a pin head like that instead of a broad forehead like Sam Hyde then you are never going to be able to understand the other dimensions because you got less cranial capacity.

Did you know, the smartest man in he US also thinks that cranial capacity is correlated with IQ? It's not moronic to think no matter what your potato head says.

>Sorry pal but there's only so much money in the world

You are now aware that the gold standard has been dead for over half a century.

Socialism is still popular despite all common sense so I'm sure somebody would.

>muh roads

True.

You mean treads? ITS LITERALLY JUST TREADS ON WHEELS ITS JUST A TANK WTF??????

>wealth comes from wages

brain drain + the ultra rich have assets and investments, they don't earn most of their money in cash so they can't be taxed on it

Oh look, price controls.

How do these always turn out again?

>the CEO of a company should be paid at maximum 20 times that of a part time intern

fuck off with this horseshit

I'm not sure that a maximum wage would affect positions that are able to be replaced by automation.

??

kys you tubby neckbeard nerd