Maximum wage

Whoa, really makes you think huh?

Attached: max wage.jpg (642x638, 49K)

does it

That's the entire reason our healthcare got so fucked up.

Maximum wage is organically determined by your performance. There is a finite amount you can produce, so presumably once you reach that finite amount you would not be paid more.

Nah.

There is. Doctors in Canada can only earn so much in a year.

what about minimum wage then?
is it okay to have a minimum wage without having a maximum wage?

>earn so much
I bet they do, they're doctors

>Cap incentives
What could go wrong?

While there is a finite level you can do, with machines that increase production you can make more product thus receive a higher wage.

You're right we need to abolish the minimum wage we'd probably have near 100% employment. I would pay a hobo $1/hour to guard my car and he's got nothing else to do.

capital gains you nigger sage

There is in communist countries......

feel free to leave anytime.....

Attached: 1468800034102.jpg (551x549, 58K)

STFU and go post your musical.ly boom floss challenge, Zoe.

>is it okay to have a minimum wage without having a maximum wage?
They're exclusive problems with different reasons for implementing them. With minimum wage you're arguing that the lowest deserve at least this, which is a completely different group of people than who'd be affected by a maximum wage. The market will respond accordingly (but distorted). If they can't pay a CEO millions and must conform to a $100/hour maximum wage, they'll give him $100/hour plus a free Yacht and Mansion. If they can't pay a worker less than $15/hour, then they'll find a way to cut him.

I feel like there is????

minimum wage is economically stifling and needs further meaningless and detrimental government jobs to funtion and harvest the taxpayer..

Who gets the surplus profit if sales exceed maximum wage?

Attached: 1503606398576.jpg (900x968, 209K)

the people

Other employees

Otherwise lower the cost of the product

Let's set the max to 10x average wage. Anything above that, and you should be psychologically evaluated.

Why shouldn't there be a minimum wage for full employment if there is a minimum cost of living?

the state ofcourse, thats how it should be!

You're right, I hadn't thought about it like that! Let's get rid of minimum wage.

Because that just leads to unemployment. I'd rather a little bit of money than no money.

Attached: BeASmarty.jpg (500x500, 98K)

You are capable of dictating your own minimum wage. Minimum wage laws as they stand now are just making it so employers cannot take risks on new hires, and tends to mean that competent workers get paid the same amount as total shitheels. I do art/design and would never work a job for anywhere close to what the legal minimum wage is.

It's still going to be finite, and the amount of money earned is still going to have relation to what is produced. If the productive capacity of a CEO is that they make decisions that generate higher profit for a company, then their wage is going to intrinsically be tied to the profit they yield. Even if we accept that the company can grow infinitely, because the wage is tied directly to performance of a duty we can also assume that it's going to naturally prevent someone from making arbitrarily high amounts of money.

You assume the minimum cost of living wouldn't be affected by a minimum wage for full employment

It is

the sick, poor and unemployed obviously!
he's a commie hippie fucking bitch.

Attached: 1482215583690.gif (343x297, 2M)

> suck at life
> see people not sucking at life and get jealous
> ask these people to suck at life because equality

t. literally never held a job.

I personally just don’t think politicans should make more than 75k a year and then see how many want to be politicans

How so?

In fact, if you remove the minimum wage entirely and provided you don't settle for literally letting people starve to death, there will be a zone where wages aren't worth working for, because welfare will be higher, effectively establishing a minimum wage all by itself.

I concede that minimum wage stifles business slightly, but the question is, should such businesses even exist if they can only afford to pay people below what they need to exist?

This mainly affects things like farmers, where people are being held as almost literal slaves, often employed illegally to pay them next to nothing.

Use a search engine, you'll get better results than cardboard.

>provided you don't settle for literally letting people starve to death, there will be a zone where wages aren't worth working for, because welfare will be higher, effectively establishing a minimum wage all by itself
This might be true in Germany, but the only way to reach this level of gibs in America is to pump out kids, and no one but single mothers does this.

I know you mean well, but the landlords aren't going to pass up on raising rent prices in a scene where the renters can pay more and the demand is inelastic as a result of NIMBY effectively keeping competition out by preventing new construction and renovation to more housing units.

Are you retarded?

For one thing, Interns. You know what was a big thing a few decades ago? That is gone now and as a direct result stifles growth?
Unpaid internships.

If you offer a job below the cost of living, then you get people that are using that job for non-monetary purposes (such as experience, or making a career to get promoted into a higher paying job) or to supplement another income.

Also how the fuck do ILLEGALLY EMPLOYED people get Minimum Wage? ILLEGAL means they don't follow at least one law, why not two?

It is proven that raising or creating a minimum wage doesn't cause the poor to get better treatment, it means businesses don't expand, don't take risks on the unemployed and get more elitist since they have less spots for more people.

There should be like *tokes bong* a maximum *dabs* wage, man... *hits joint*

Ask yourself why a minimum wage exists to begin with, and why it's set the way it is, instead of 20 percent higher or lower.

A tip to help you get started: It isn't actually based on economic production.

it's true

after a certain income level it should all be paid into tax coffers

there is no reason to be bezos tier rich where you can launch your own satellites and buy african countries

we have to draw a line and say that the state is the ultimate authority

>spend millions of dollars campaigning for seat.
>position pays 200K a year.
>pass laws favorable to the MIC
>leave office
>walk into a cushy 5 million a year jin as a department head for Lockheed.

Because all rich people do all day is dress in fancy suits and light cigars with $50 bills obviously. It's self apparent to everyone that the guy operating the machine bought and paid for by the rich guy using materials bought and paid for by the rich guy to produce a product invented and made famous by the rich guy is 100% the owner of what comes out the other end of that machine

I was expecting to see a leaf above this comment...

>implying there should be a minimum wage

After reinvestment?

There is effectively a maximum wage in a capitalist society...

Remember, in a capitalist society, the money supply is limited and can't be debased...

Unlimited money supply means no longer capitalist...

What would happen if all NFL players could only earn $1M per year? You think most of them would work as hard?

It mostly fills me with contempt for the average Leftist. Allow me to explain at length why you're retarded, and why this is the single cringiest opinion ever expressed by a human being.

People who make "wages" are employees. You understand this, yes? A CEO who makes 8 million a month or whatever is still an employee. He doesn't own the company, he doesn't even necessarily have stock in the company. He's an employee.

His bosses, the people who OWN the corporation, pay him as little money as they can already. It just happens that his job requires an absurdly rare skillset and so they have no choice except to pay him an exorbitant amount.

If they didn't have to pay him X, they wouldn't. You know why? Because that money saved doesn't go to the other workers, it goes to THEM. It goes to the SHAREHOLDERS. And that's not a wage, it's Capital Gains.

So, your cringe question, and your utterly cringe opinion, is that we should implement a law to give Porky more money because you're butthurt that one employee is paid slightly more than another. You'd rather pass laws MANDATING that the Jew get more of your money because you're jealous of another employee who is himself a glorified wageslave.

Proof once again that every Leftist, everywhere, is motivated solely by jealousy. Every idea you've ever had was put into you by a kike, who knew that like a good little shabbos goy, like a good little Leftist, you'd fight for his ends tirelessly while he rubs his hands together and watches.

Good fucking goyim. A good little Leftist. A good little revolutionary, repeating your pre-recorded talking points because thinking is hard. Makes your little wet-brained noggin hurt. You can't think too hard, you need some weed and a few hours of Rick & Morty to warm up to your busy day of making an absolute ass of yourself in front of thousands of people doing the bidding of people who treat you like the buckdancing nigger named Toby that you are.

Attached: revy_alcoholism.jpg (1920x1080, 74K)

This board hates soros and his (((type))) but if there was a maximun wage they wouldnt be able to do what they do

>invented and made famous by the rich guy
False. Invented by a group of employees who barely get to scrape by and made famous by another group of employees that make good money but nowhere near as much as the great guy.
In the best case scenario anyway, because 99% of the time it's just a copy-paste job with a new logo.

Yes because they wouldn't make $1m/y any other way. In fact, almost all of them would be stuck flipping burgers.

>Backpfeifengesicht
Did I do that right, Germanbros? Is pic related not backpfeifengesicht?

The guys at the top are masters of loopholes
A maximum wage would mean his wage supplemented with stock or whatever

The people who earn the most money aren't paid in wages sweetie ;)

this is sooo underrated it becomes pasta

because those earning the maximum wage are the ones that make the rules, negrito

>fag boxes him self out

I'm pretty sure capital gains would factor into any maximum "wage" law. I'm interpreting the end result as some sort of maximum wealth/year after investments law.

Then again, they might actually be campaigning for just a wage law. The most likely scenario is that no one saying there should be a maximum wage law knows what they really want.

>A maximum wage would mean his wage supplemented with stock or whatever
This. A maximum wage is meaningless without consideration of capital gains.

>Cap the amount of money a person can make
>Hyperinflation is just a hoax bruh
>money becomes worthless
>leftist retards claim it wasn't real socialism

Attached: 1497003297279.jpg (720x720, 77K)

True. You can't really track shit like company-paid $20k hotel rooms with wage or capital gains methods.

>absurdly rare skillset
A recent study found that the average Fortune 500 CEO made the correct decision 55% of the time, hardly better than a coin toss.
Also, what about people that got the job because daddy owns the company? I personally know one in my company who shows up in the office 29 hours a week and golfs the rest of the time.

>The most likely scenario is that no one saying there should be a maximum wage law knows what they really want.
That is correct. What it actually means is a Jew, and I am quite certain of this, told some retards with bad haircuts that the reason they're not rich is definitely not that all of their money is a loan from a bunch of kikes at the Federal Reserve, or that the reason they don't have higher wages is definitely not that the Jew has flooded the labor market and devalued their work to the point that 7.25 is actually too high for them to be employable.

No no, the problem is that that white guy in a suit, that gentile manager, he's the problem, because the scraps he's thrown have a bit more meat on them than the gristle thrown at them. They don't know what Capital Gains are because the Jew didn't tell them. They don't know anything except what the Jew told them and if you try to tell them, they'll repeat the contingency broken-record recording of HUU HUU HUU BOOTLICKER HUU HUU HUUUUUU and start bitching about "bosses" or "executives" or whatever other monopoly-man tophat wearing parody of reality was drilled into them by the JEW who owns them.

And that's how it's supposed to be, because the Left was, is, always has been and will always be a tool of the KIKE to redirect the rightful anger of people away from the corrupt financial system onto people who, while perhaps overpaid, actually work for a living, UNLIKE Moshe and Chaim.

And if you think about it this makes perfect sense. The sort of person who becomes a Leftist has always been a useful idiot, that's why he's not making money himself. So why would you assume that when entering the vast world of politics, he wouldn't be easily manipulated into fighting for the Jew? He doesn't desire mastery he just wants to be a favored slave. Toby. A house nigger. A buck dancing bojangling step-n-fetchit white glove wearing HEIDI HEIDI HEIDI HI squealing bowtie wearing nigger.

Attached: revy-black-lagoon-the-second-barrage-89.5.jpg (210x240, 18K)

Fools and their money are soon parted. Again, if the shareholders didn't have to pay these people, they wouldn't. And if it's just nepotism--well okay, that's less effective than running the business correctly.

It still doesn't change the fact, which is that bitching about a maximum wage completely ignores the actual exploitation that these people claim is inherent to the corporate structure. If you literally liquified the entire position of CEO from 80% of major corporations and redistributed that wealth to the other employees, you'd be lucky if you saw a 5 cent/hour increase in pay.

It's trivial. Utterly trivial. It's just a talking point to get the shabbos fucking goyim on the Left to tear down other whites because it's easy. If the slaves revolt, the Master points to the tallest slave and says "kill him, he whipped you!"

And maybe that's true. But he did it because the Master told him to. And at the end of the day you're all back in fucking chains. But you feel like a good little revolutionary. A good little leftist, with your face in the slop bucket.

Attached: 384_25309488_p28.png (670x620, 41K)

That is correct.

You nailed it

Most companies don't have billions of employees. Microsoft has about 150k including non-full employees. Gates makes 2.6b/y and satya makes about 80m/y (probably more by now). That would be over 16k/y extra for EVERY employee if gates' salary was removed. That's not counting the inflated salaries of the other C-level executives (M$ local presidents and CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, etc.), and the fact that this is not the right comparison because nobody's claiming that the bottom feeder part-time workers should be paid more than they currently are, but they could easily afford to increase everyone's pay by 20-25% for example. And if they decided to be about meritocracy instead of politics, they could even make high-performers get paid what they deserve instead of fucking nothing without necessarily increasing salaries of low-achievers.

Microsoft is one corporation of already substantially paid tech professionals that has held a near monopoly in their field for decades.

Look at a corporation that isn't the literal watermark of market domination. Who do you work for? Who does the average man work for?

Besides which Gates makes money because he owns huge swathes of the company. He hasn't done actual work in his field for like ten years, which just illustrates the point more: If you implemented some idiotic wage cap, you might cut Satya's income but you wouldn't touch Gates. In fact, he'd probably make more.

Most CEO`s are owners of that company`s stocks that they are working for. Additionally they are voted in by the stockholders and their capital, they literally are the voice and will of the capital.

>So why would you assume that when entering the vast world of politics, he wouldn't be easily manipulated into fighting for the Jew?
I didn't assume this.

I'm just a NEET who lives with his parents. The capital gains from their savings will pay taxes and utilities when they're gone. I don't have much stake in this discussion apart from the intellectual stimulation like considering loopholes.

Wrong. These compensation schemes are already taken into account for taxing purposes, there would be 0 problem in considering them also for capping. Both satya's and gate's incomes would be cut. If the cut is significant enough, it will ultimately mean that people are in these positions because they like to be there, not because they like making lots of money for fuckall work. The idea of the cap is to ensure that the compensation package at the highest levels reflects precisely the risk level involved, not more (but obviously not less). Currently, it's so disconnected that you can live your life as a failed entrepreneur and still be richer than the top 20% highly specialized, overperforming salaried people.
Additionally, smaller companies as a rule tend to have less employees which makes the highest-paid employee's potential redistribution of wealth impactful in a similar way wherever such a salary cap would have been applied.

Are you comparing the average worker's wage to the company owner's wage, or are you paying the average worker's overhead vs wage to the company owner's overhead vs wage?

Those with little or no financial risk don't get to complain when their investment is returned 20 times over, while the owner invests double what he makes into ensuring the company stays afloat.

Nice meme

>not Real capitalism

a minimum wage is just another way of saying "if I could pay you less I would" - hence why capitalism has run its course and is a race to zero.

>implying people only work hard because they want to be millionaires

Attached: pure-ideology-o-meter-5509018.png (500x468, 115K)

What backs a claim that such an equivocal system could work besides perhaps a claim that it has never been tried? Just because the arithmetic works out doesn't mean it will survive. If the equivocal system works and is even superior, then why isn't every business doing it?

If only that was even remotely true.

That's not how Venezuela or other cases collapsed.

>What backs a claim that such an equivocal system could work
Nothing. That's why this is a thread isn't it? To discuss the possibility of such a concept.
>If the equivocal system works and is even superior, then why isn't every business doing it?
CEOs are greedy and want infinite money.

Well said. Upboat.

>Fortune 500 CEO made the correct decision 55% of the time

It's not being right all the time, it's being right when it counts.
Nobody cares if 45% of my choices are wrong if the impact of them being wrong is negligible.

People care about big choices where you can't trust random chance, where there's more factors than a coin toss can handle.

Nobody cares that when I instituted a work study for 6 months productivity went down 5% and we didn't learn anything we didn't already know.

What they DO care about is when I built that new unit that was needed to handle 2500 phone calls and request for information every week was implemented flawlessly in under a month and is entirely self-sufficient and self-reporting.

>That's why this is a thread isn't it? To discuss the possibility of such a concept.
Surely a competitor using a better equivocal system would eventually grow to overtake the unequal system? Why do we need the gov to step in and mandate equivocal businesses if an investor could make an equivocal competitive business that eventually overtakes the fat cats?

Barring that strategy, would it be possible to try out the maximum wage theory in just one industry to see if it works as a system?

>CEOs are greedy and want infinite money.
kek, not wrong per se, but the greed is more accurately from those who stand to get egregious wealth from capital gains

goddamn it i hate communists.
there should be no regulation of pay, especially minimum wage.
if the government allows companies to pay 7.25 an hour, they will.
if there are no rules, nobody would work anywhere that didnt offer a living wage.

>why can pathological money fiends horde wealth?
because it was mandated that way in the scriptures

Attached: umbral_semites_of_avarice.jpg (1280x674, 249K)

>Maximum wage is organically determined by your performance.
kek

Attached: born_to_lose.jpg (600x425, 93K)

Communists are brainlets. The people who earn the real money collect it as revenues, not as a salary

>nobody would work anywhere that didnt offer a living wage.
hey fuck off with your logic that makes sense, we dont want any of that over here

We're not much of desu with you

>Make 400/hr
>Get evaluation
Yep he's fine

except when illegals standardize the new living wage as living in a garage with 7 other families and eating dogmeat

Why hasn't Trump deported all those sub-humans yet?

I bet he has a
> sky's the limit
tramp stamp

Well, the bong had me thinking for a second there.

What excuse is good enough?

Based lagoonposter

Why do all leftists look like complete scumbags that you'd avoid at all costs if you saw them out in public?

Disgusting nappy unkempt hair. Can't even shave. Stupid hat. Probably smells like weed, cigarettes, and BO, etc.

There's 0 pressure to grow beyond the competition, because without doing that you can have your billions anyway, and if you're a threat you get eliminated by the competition one way or another (slander, setup, offer you can't refuse, paying others to boycott you, or outright assassination, though the latter only really happens in 3rd world shitholes nowadays). Conversely, if the cost of overtaking the competition is to make significantly less than if you didn't bother with that, then why would you except if you actually genuinely care about your company? (Protip: almost nobody does).

You're also right that it's not just the C-levels, the board of director have a lot of influence on that.

Because the minimum wage has done enough damage.

Attached: SocialistsAndCapitalists.png (750x499, 565K)

This pic is such a meme. A capitalist looks and says "only I should be this wealthy, and also that's not enough".

Provably false, evidence: every socialist government that has ever existed.

Where is Obama's billion-dollar mansion? He lives in a shitty brownstone just like everyone else in DC, only difference is he owns it, instead of renting it. Dubya lives on a cattle ranch, Clinton and Trump made their fortunes before they even went into politics, so you can't say they plundered the treasury to build their mansions like every socialist since Lenin has.

You can scream at reality till your head explodes, it will not change the fact that capitalism provides wealth to everyone, while leftism is intended to deprive all others of their wealth because only Great Leader deserves it.

Attached: socialismworks-437x600.jpg (437x600, 74K)

Thanks for demonstrating that you're clinically retarded.