Goldman CEO's $53.4M Bonus Breaks Record
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How can you lie to someone about how much food they need?
I'm not sure, how can you ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is up to that individual to adjust his cost of living to his income
So, if you were to make, say, $8 an hour, and not have guarenteed work hours, averaging your income to, say, $200 a week, how would you propose to adjust your standard of living in order to get by ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
impossible to define 'cost of living' concepts.
The cost of the cheapest possible accomodation, plus the cost of the cheapest possible food, leaving an extra $20 a week towards things like power ( no phone, obviously ), transport ( public, obviously ) and clothing. Is that so confusing ?
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
Christian Graus wrote:
Is that so confusing ?
In what city/town/village of what region of what country?
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." - Stephen Hawking
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Is that so confusing ?
In what city/town/village of what region of what country?
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." - Stephen Hawking
Food doesn't cost that much more in different areas. What country is a silly question, this is something that's dealt with on the 'country' level. The housing question levels itself out, if you can't afford to live somewhere, you move.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
-
Food doesn't cost that much more in different areas. What country is a silly question, this is something that's dealt with on the 'country' level. The housing question levels itself out, if you can't afford to live somewhere, you move.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
1. Food and utilities vary greatly across the US. So does housing. A decent 2 bedroom apartment in my area runs $500 per month. In NYC it could cost 6x that or more. 2. These days it's politically incorrect to suggest that someone has to move. We must give them more money so they can stay where they please. 3. The 'country' comment was a lame attempt to appear international. Us Americans always get accused of being nationally myopic so I figured I'd give it a try. :-O
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." - Stephen Hawking
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Ah... the problem is not the gap between income and costs, it's that these people are being lied to about how much food they need to survive ?
How can you lie to someone about how much food they need? It is up to that individual to adjust his cost of living to his income. You are donig people in that category no favors by crippling the economy they live in with impossible to define 'cost of living' concepts. If you pay people to be poor, that is precisely what they will be. If you don't, they will adjust their lifestyles accordingly.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Something just occured to me. Your minimum wage applies to people of all ages ? That's stupid, if it's the case. Here, there are minimum wages based on age, up to 21 ( or something ). I can recall getting sizable pay increates from the age of 17 through to about 20, entirely based on my birthday. Obviously, any minimum wage should be for an adult, someone who is young enough to live at home would expect to do more basic work, and at a lower rate.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How can you lie to someone about how much food they need?
I'm not sure, how can you ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is up to that individual to adjust his cost of living to his income
So, if you were to make, say, $8 an hour, and not have guarenteed work hours, averaging your income to, say, $200 a week, how would you propose to adjust your standard of living in order to get by ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
impossible to define 'cost of living' concepts.
The cost of the cheapest possible accomodation, plus the cost of the cheapest possible food, leaving an extra $20 a week towards things like power ( no phone, obviously ), transport ( public, obviously ) and clothing. Is that so confusing ?
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
Christian Graus wrote:
Is that so confusing ?
No, it isn't confusing, but it is a meaningless example. The point would be that if this same individual had more opportunity to better his situation, he would be more likely to take it, especially if his only other option was to go hungry. More opportunity exists in an economic environment where people are expected to be productive and are free to invest their own resources as they best see fit. You are describing a scenario that is a direct consequence of applying the very solutions you prefer. The more money that government extracts from the economy to 'help' the poor, the less opportunity there is for the poor to help themeselves.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Because it provides for a more efficient economy. More productivity, more jobs, more opportunity. Now, if we could just get rid of minimum wage and social welfare programs poverty could be eliminated entirely.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Weren't you in Max Max "Beyond Thunderdome"?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Is that so confusing ?
No, it isn't confusing, but it is a meaningless example. The point would be that if this same individual had more opportunity to better his situation, he would be more likely to take it, especially if his only other option was to go hungry. More opportunity exists in an economic environment where people are expected to be productive and are free to invest their own resources as they best see fit. You are describing a scenario that is a direct consequence of applying the very solutions you prefer. The more money that government extracts from the economy to 'help' the poor, the less opportunity there is for the poor to help themeselves.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Actually, I am very much not in favour of the levels of welfare paid out in this country, it amazes me that politicians are too scared to even talk about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but it is a meaningless example.
The cost of living is what it costs to live. How does that mean nothing ? I asked this in another thread, but, surely your minimum wage applies only to adults ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The more money that government extracts from the economy to 'help' the poor, the less opportunity there is for the poor to help themeselves.
This isn't true. Tax would not go down if welfare went down. However, I do agree that, in my country at least, too much welfare is paid out to people who are unwilling to work. Single mothers are top of my personal list. I don't think a parental benefit should increase with more children, nor do I think it should be available to anyone who was not married and one partner employed when they decided to breed. Good luck making that happen....
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
-
Something just occured to me. Your minimum wage applies to people of all ages ? That's stupid, if it's the case. Here, there are minimum wages based on age, up to 21 ( or something ). I can recall getting sizable pay increates from the age of 17 through to about 20, entirely based on my birthday. Obviously, any minimum wage should be for an adult, someone who is young enough to live at home would expect to do more basic work, and at a lower rate.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
Christian Graus wrote:
Obviously, any minimum wage should be for an adult, someone who is young enough to live at home would expect to do more basic work, and at a lower rate
Sorry, you're not allowed to do that anymore. :) Employers can no longer ask for your name, age, nationality, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Many workplaces have had to ban employees from sending birthday cards to each other in case someone receives one that is prejudiced against their age. (i.e. a "Congratulations on getting over the hill" card for a 40 year old, even though it is always sent in good humour.) Instead, they issue company-sanctioned 'birthday wish statement' signed by the directors and delivered by registered courier. We still have age-based minimum wages here, but after that new legislation I wouldn't expect it to last past 2010 before it is deemed un-European and scraped in favour of a flat rate. Pretty soon they'll make it illegal to discipline workers who don't work because it discriminates against lazy people... :~
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Christian Graus wrote:
Obviously, any minimum wage should be for an adult, someone who is young enough to live at home would expect to do more basic work, and at a lower rate
Sorry, you're not allowed to do that anymore. :) Employers can no longer ask for your name, age, nationality, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Many workplaces have had to ban employees from sending birthday cards to each other in case someone receives one that is prejudiced against their age. (i.e. a "Congratulations on getting over the hill" card for a 40 year old, even though it is always sent in good humour.) Instead, they issue company-sanctioned 'birthday wish statement' signed by the directors and delivered by registered courier. We still have age-based minimum wages here, but after that new legislation I wouldn't expect it to last past 2010 before it is deemed un-European and scraped in favour of a flat rate. Pretty soon they'll make it illegal to discipline workers who don't work because it discriminates against lazy people... :~
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
Pretty soon they'll make it illegal to discipline workers who don't work because it discriminates against lazy people...
Gawd, I wish you were wrong. :(
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." - Stephen Hawking
-
Yeah, I often think that in a forum like this one, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone has what it takes to be highly employable, or to do any form of skilled labour. On the other end of the scale, people often seem to forget that these people also need to eat, and a society that does not give them this opportunity is going to pay the price in increased crime.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
Christian Graus wrote:
Yeah, I often think that in a forum like this one, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone has what it takes to be highly employable, or to do any form of skilled labour.
Which is why it's important to give tax cuts to those people on the lower end of the employment market. That combined with a minimum wage, makes it a lot easier for such people to make a living, without being dependent on welfare.
-- Fun for the whole family - except grandma and grandpa
-
Yeah, I often think that in a forum like this one, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone has what it takes to be highly employable, or to do any form of skilled labour. On the other end of the scale, people often seem to forget that these people also need to eat, and a society that does not give them this opportunity is going to pay the price in increased crime.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
Christian Graus wrote:
On the other end of the scale, people often seem to forget that these people also need to eat, and a society that does not give them this opportunity is going to pay the price in increased crime.
I know someone who is heavy into crime and is collecting social security checks and food stamps. It is a life style that is learned by parents and other people. Why would they get a job when they can claim they are disabled and get free money? Again, its a life style, I know so many people who live that life style and they are the most lazy people who like to sit around, smoke pot, watch tv, and do drugs.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Actually, I am very much not in favour of the levels of welfare paid out in this country, it amazes me that politicians are too scared to even talk about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but it is a meaningless example.
The cost of living is what it costs to live. How does that mean nothing ? I asked this in another thread, but, surely your minimum wage applies only to adults ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The more money that government extracts from the economy to 'help' the poor, the less opportunity there is for the poor to help themeselves.
This isn't true. Tax would not go down if welfare went down. However, I do agree that, in my country at least, too much welfare is paid out to people who are unwilling to work. Single mothers are top of my personal list. I don't think a parental benefit should increase with more children, nor do I think it should be available to anyone who was not married and one partner employed when they decided to breed. Good luck making that happen....
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
Christian Graus wrote:
Tax would not go down if welfare went down.
That isn 't what I said. The less money a government extracts from an economy to pay for non-productive purposes (including the military, btw) the more productive an economy will be. The more productive an economy is, the more opportunity there is for everyone. Some will benefit more than others, and a very few will benefit tremendously, but everyone other than the most recalcitrant will see some improvement in their standard of living.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't think a parental benefit should increase with more children, nor do I think it should be available to anyone who was not married and one partner employed when they decided to breed.
I think that children should be fed by society if their parents cannot do it. But it should be done in such a way that provides no benefits at all to the parents. In fact, I think the same should go for any person in a situation of legal dependency upon someone else. I think that is the best society can be expected to do to ensure that children are not malnourished and also discourage people from having children without regard for the social consequencies.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yeah, I often think that in a forum like this one, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone has what it takes to be highly employable, or to do any form of skilled labour.
Which is why it's important to give tax cuts to those people on the lower end of the employment market. That combined with a minimum wage, makes it a lot easier for such people to make a living, without being dependent on welfare.
-- Fun for the whole family - except grandma and grandpa
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Which is why it's important to give tax cuts to those people on the lower end of the employment market. That combined with a minimum wage, makes it a lot easier for such people to make a living, without being dependent on welfare.
That is merely welfare by another name.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Tax would not go down if welfare went down.
That isn 't what I said. The less money a government extracts from an economy to pay for non-productive purposes (including the military, btw) the more productive an economy will be. The more productive an economy is, the more opportunity there is for everyone. Some will benefit more than others, and a very few will benefit tremendously, but everyone other than the most recalcitrant will see some improvement in their standard of living.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't think a parental benefit should increase with more children, nor do I think it should be available to anyone who was not married and one partner employed when they decided to breed.
I think that children should be fed by society if their parents cannot do it. But it should be done in such a way that provides no benefits at all to the parents. In fact, I think the same should go for any person in a situation of legal dependency upon someone else. I think that is the best society can be expected to do to ensure that children are not malnourished and also discourage people from having children without regard for the social consequencies.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think that children should be fed by society if their parents cannot do it.
The issue is, without free money, a lot of these people would stop breeding.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think that is the best society can be expected to do to ensure that children are not malnourished and also discourage people from having children without regard for the social consequencies.
Yes, I agree. If the schools were to provide meals for kids who are disadvantaged, that would seem an obvious way to do it.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
-
peterchen wrote:
Or maybe the money will be spent in a way that ensures the poor remain poor.
Only government has a vested interest in doing that.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Ah yes, I forgot. Doing nothing is the only right thing to do, and everything else is horribly wrog.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Which is why it's important to give tax cuts to those people on the lower end of the employment market. That combined with a minimum wage, makes it a lot easier for such people to make a living, without being dependent on welfare.
That is merely welfare by another name.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Maybe so, but it doesn't suffer from the inefficiency of government and bureaucracy, nor is it dependent on willingness to do good by the rich.
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
-
I've never seen any community devastated by capitalism. (Beyond environmental damage which, certainly, the businesses in question should be fiscally accountable for). To require or expect someone to invest in the local economy when there is little probability of seeing a profit on that investment is certainly not using capital wisely. The main reason so many Mexicans are coming here to find work is directly because this is where most of the investments are being made. I wish more rich people would invest in Mexico so more of those pathetic assholes would stay home. Mexico is not investment friendly.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've never seen any community devastated by capitalism
Have you ever travelled outside of the USA? You should, they do say travel broadens the mind.
Quite a lot in the '70s, not much sine. But, regardless, poverty around the world has far more to do with socialism and other forms of government's waste of revenue than it does on free market capitalism. Capitalism is the only reason the people of the world are as well off as they are. Get rid of all forms of socialism, and you would free all of humanity from poverty.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
How will less tax help "poor people left in the private sector"?
Ummm... 1) the money (not the poor people) is left in the private sector ;P 2) Seriously, in one form or another money left in the private sector is always used to re-invest in business. More supplies, equipment and services are needed for the reinvestment and jobs are created. Poor people become self sufficient and their standard of living rises. 3) Money collected in taxes is watered down as it travels through government red-tape and corruption. Any money given to the poor is deemed charity and creates or sustains dependency.
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." - Stephen Hawking
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
- Seriously, in one form or another money left in the private sector is always used to re-invest in business.
How could you be so ignorant of the title of this thread?
AndyKEnZ wrote:
How could you be so ignorant of the title of this thread?
I'm not. Let me spell it out for you: A huge bonus is paid. Some of the money is directly used to buy things - houses, cars, jewelry, electronics, etc... All of these things need to be designed, built and maintained which creates jobs. All of the raw materials for these things need to be designed, built and maintained which creates jobs. The majority of the money is probably put into investments - stocks, bonds, CDs, etc... In every case, the money is NOT stagnant. It used in the market to generate more money by buying and selling products and services which... you guessed it... creates jobs. Economics is pretty simple when you really think about it. :rolleyes:
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." - Stephen Hawking