Goldman CEO's $53.4M Bonus Breaks Record
-
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
-
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
-
David 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
But if they are in work, we can still tax them! :rolleyes: It's ok, New Labour hopefully won't be in power then and the Tories are more likely to say no to such a suggestion.
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 -
Let me spell it out for you T-R-I-C-K ah what the heck the "Trickle down Effect" much publicised by Thatcher, it has been shown in many economic studies to be untrue! Wealth does not trickle down to the poor is stays with the rich.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
it has been shown in many economic studies to be untrue
Meh! It's been shown in other studies to be entirely true. I rely on my own experience and common sense.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Wealth does not trickle down to the poor is stays with the rich.
1 Try to explain where the rich put their money that doesn't by default generate jobs. 2 Do you honestly believe that it's better to tax the hell out of people and give the money to the poor as charity?? Doesn't this make the poor more dependent on government - not less?
"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
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
Definitely not more than 20%.
Lets hope not. That money will ultimately help far more poor people left in the private sector than it would if given to the government.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Especially with the Bush administration. It will directly go to Iraq.
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
Definitely not more than 20%.
Lets hope not. That money will ultimately help far more poor people left in the private sector than it would if given to the government.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/worldistribution/NYT_november_27.htm[^]
I find it odd that we celebrate diversity by trying to do away with it
-
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.
Actually raising minimum wage has been proven to stimulate the economy. Look to any state that instituted it and the accompanying data and you'll see the evidence. If people make more money, then they can spend more. Its the masses that spend, not necessarily the business owners that aren't paying their workers enough.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Actually raising minimum wage has been proven to stimulate the economy. Look to any state that instituted it and the accompanying data and you'll see the evidence. If people make more money, then they can spend more. Its the masses that spend, not necessarily the business owners that aren't paying their workers enough.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Actually raising minimum wage has been proven to stimulate the economy. Look to any state that instituted it and the accompanying data and you'll see the evidence.
Any such evidence is purely conincidental. If anyone actually believed those statistic they would immediately raise minimum wage to $100.00/hr and we could all retire in a couple of years. Minimum wage is nothing but a feel good scam perpetrated on mindless sheep.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
If people make more money, then they can spend more. Its the masses that spend, not necessarily the business owners that aren't paying their workers enough.
You cannot grow wealth by giving money to people for not producing anything. You are merely shifting money from one part of the economy to another (with government bureaucrats taking their cut for effectively doing nothing). It is no more complex than that. If capital is invested in profitable, productive enterprises than the wealth is multiplied.
I find it odd that we celebrate diversity by trying to do away with it
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Actually raising minimum wage has been proven to stimulate the economy. Look to any state that instituted it and the accompanying data and you'll see the evidence.
Any such evidence is purely conincidental. If anyone actually believed those statistic they would immediately raise minimum wage to $100.00/hr and we could all retire in a couple of years. Minimum wage is nothing but a feel good scam perpetrated on mindless sheep.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
If people make more money, then they can spend more. Its the masses that spend, not necessarily the business owners that aren't paying their workers enough.
You cannot grow wealth by giving money to people for not producing anything. You are merely shifting money from one part of the economy to another (with government bureaucrats taking their cut for effectively doing nothing). It is no more complex than that. If capital is invested in profitable, productive enterprises than the wealth is multiplied.
I find it odd that we celebrate diversity by trying to do away with it
Stan Shannon wrote:
Minimum wage is nothing but a feel good scam perpetrated on mindless sheep.
Baaaaaaa~ Too extreme. $10 an hour would be more like it. A livable wage is not wrong. Otherwise we just endorse slavery. Its just wage slavery. And any form of slavery is wrong in my view. I have to disagree with you on this one. A livable wage would stimulate the economy. Some small business owners would just have to do more work, rather than manage their underpaid workers.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot grow wealth by giving money to people for not producing anything
Well, hopefully the people working for you are producing something.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Minimum wage is nothing but a feel good scam perpetrated on mindless sheep.
Baaaaaaa~ Too extreme. $10 an hour would be more like it. A livable wage is not wrong. Otherwise we just endorse slavery. Its just wage slavery. And any form of slavery is wrong in my view. I have to disagree with you on this one. A livable wage would stimulate the economy. Some small business owners would just have to do more work, rather than manage their underpaid workers.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot grow wealth by giving money to people for not producing anything
Well, hopefully the people working for you are producing something.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
You're obviously free to believe what ever silliness you like, but artificially inflating the value of labor will never be a good idea.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Well, hopefully the people working for you are producing something.
Until they can get another job doing less work for exactly the same pay. Who would be dumb enough to not do that?
I find it odd that we celebrate diversity by trying to do away with it
-
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
Mike Mullikin wrote:
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
Top!
Rhys666
-
You're obviously free to believe what ever silliness you like, but artificially inflating the value of labor will never be a good idea.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Well, hopefully the people working for you are producing something.
Until they can get another job doing less work for exactly the same pay. Who would be dumb enough to not do that?
I find it odd that we celebrate diversity by trying to do away with it
Stan Shannon wrote:
You're obviously free to believe what ever silliness you like, but artificially inflating the value of labor will never be a good idea.
Why thank you, although I don't agree that its artificial or silly. First off, what's artificial is the current "value" of labor. $5 an hour nets $800 gross a month. How can that sustain the life of a single person. I won't even factor in families. A single person, say they didn't live in a state with a high cost of living. Ok, they'll maybe pay $350 in rent if they're lucky, maybe $100 for gas, electricity, and phone. Just the basics. TV they can get over the air. That's 450. And the 100 doesn't account for winter. 30 for elect, 50 for gas, and 20 for phone. That leaves 350 for food. And nothing for anything else, like emergencies. We haven't even factored in clothes. Now this is considered: Poverty. That means they will have to be supplemented by taxpayers. So really you'd rather them need a handout rather than be paid a livable wage for working 40 hours a week. Really what you are endorsing with this position is slavery. -- modified at 12:39 Friday 22nd December, 2006 And that's no account for taxes.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder