I wouldn’t worry about hitting that max if I were you
Comment on There are Minimum Wages, Why Not a Maximum Wage?
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Call it crab bucket, but I would hate to work in a system where my labor value is capped by someone other than me, or the person I’m selling it to.
TheRealCharlesEames@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
You in particular need not worry about ever hitting that max GBU_28
But that’s just it - they genuinely are worried about exactly that, because they’ve been convinced by the people exploiting their labour for profit that they too can become a billionaire one day if they just work hard enough and make sure to never remove their tongue from the boot standing on their neck!
This is a live demonstration of propaganda at work.
GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
One day I might be mega rich and then people like me better watch their step!
ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yup, exactly.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
What max? Who defines it?
Nice try with the personal insult. Schoolyard stuff.
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
I don’t think you’re being insulted, just that the limit can be unobtainable by 99% of people and still be effective. Personally I think that’s a possible thing, but also a pointless thing, a wage cap is going to do nothing to redistribute Jeff Bezos’ wealth in a sensible manner.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I found the phrasing targeted, but that’s probably because a rude person was calling me a numnuts at the same time.
I wish it was phrased the way you di, it would be more civil.
Further, I agree with you. I’m worried about it being abused and corrupted to keep laborers down
Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
A cap like this would have nothing to do with labor. Nobody, laboring, is going to ever be in danger of reaching it.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I believe it would be corrupted to target laborers and the hyper wealthy do not get their money from wages.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Americans need to relearn how to protest, and how to get the boot out of their mouth during primaries. Otherwise everything will be used against the working class while giving the owner class full socialism.
With that said, one of the ways you organize is by pushing for laws in an honest manner. If you just stay negative, people stay home. They want solutions, not problems.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I didn’t say anything about America, I think the concept would occur anywhere. As another said, robber barons are the real problem, and they do so through other financial vehicles/ means.
gibmiser@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
All systems are oppressive by that low bar definition ya numbnut.
Would it be unjust for me to make a law preventing you from accumulating so much gold/wealth in one place as to cause a black hole to form? Is that oppressive? Fuck off.
You shouldnt care about edge case scenarios where someone doesn’t get to be more rich than they already are when we are talking about solutions to problems, affecting millions of people real people with real problems.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Name calling?
gibmiser@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You are distracting from the fact that the problem can be solved with easy fixes to the language instead of agreeing that rich people should have a limit on how severe wealth inequality is.
Numbnuts
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Uncivil, I’m having actual discussion with others. Cya
Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Why would you need to have total freedom there? There are plenty of rules and regulations in place for many things. If we as society can agree on a reasonable ceiling, why would that be an issue? What is your worry?
If there would be a cap on the houdt wage or total income the chances of you ever reaching it would be slim to none, and if you did… congrats you won capitalism, be happy.
It feels similar to the “hate paying taxes” and “I’m self made”. Paying taxes is a privilege, more is better, as it means you have more. Self made does not exist, more than half of everything anyone achieves is luck, starting with the birth lottery and going from there.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I think “freedom” resonates emotionally in different ways for different people. If you try to pass a law making it illegal to drink bleach, I will oppose that law. I certainly don’t want to drink bleach, but right now I have the freedom to drink it and you would be trying to take away that freedom. It has value to me even though I intend never to exercise it. I think this is what makes me lean towards libertarianism whereas you appear to be more inclined towards a welfare state. (I don’t mean that pejoratively.)
Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Well I guess I would say that if obscene wealth disparity is against public interest, which it is. We should curtail it. Personal freedoms that rub against public interests are always going to be a point of contention, that’s why we would need good laws, not just willy nilly ones.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
The big fish to catch is untaxed earnings of the hyper wealthy. Any attacks on the potential of labor is anti worker.
Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I agree that if there is anywhere to start it is taxing assets like stock portfolios and other vehicles the billionaire class uses to avoid taxation.
The whole trickle down economics did not work, it’s time we start trying rising tide economics, as it lifts all boats.
But anti labor is a stretch depending on where you draw a line. There are amounts that cannot be explained by mere labor.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
So some dude accused me of being a troll and I’m certainly not, and I’m certainly interested in this topic. I just care about taking actual actions to affect change.
I believe this would shield the hyper wealthy from further fairness, they would hide behind this.
I further believe this would be corrupted to manipulate true laborers by targeting different professions and tax classes after the fact.
GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
You’re never going to have to worry about it. If you won the lottery every week you wouldn’t be close to what these people have.
Your labour value is already massively capped by the super rich. You earn a fraction of what you produce for others.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
“these people” don’t have what they have from wages. They have it from stock backed loans and similar.
Jesus_666@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Mind you, people probably don’t think of your standard high earner they they think of an income cap. They think of people who make four (or even five) digits an hour, a rate that maybe high end lawyers can match. Maybe.
CEOs of large companies can easily make that much, often not even tied to performance but contractually guaranteed. The super-rich make that much simply by existing.
Basically, if your labor (or mere existence) isn’t even worth 1000 bucks an hour to your clients you’re a peasant like the rest of us and an income cap is probably never going to be relevant to you.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Thanks for actually discussing.
It’s my understanding that the earnings of the hyper wealthy are derived not through “traditional wages”, but instead loans backed by stock, business entities, etc.
So right out the gate we aren’t hunting the biggest fish: taxation of the hyper wealthy such that they pay their fair share.
Next, I believe that such a system would be contorted to limit the potential of those at the bottom of the ladder. If we hope to improve the lot of those folks, the conversation should folks on minimum wages, and employment and safety protections
Jesus_666@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I agree that going for wages in the traditional sense doesn’t catch many of the most relevant income streams. However, I think that a “maximum wage” makes sense as a theoretical construct used to create a sensible income tax scheme.
Essentially, tax brackets and rates could be defined in relation to the median income. Go too far above that (hitting the “maximum wage”) and your tax rate rapidly increases, maybe even going as high as 90%. Of course this would have to cover all sorts of income, not just plain money.
This scheme would effectively box people into a certain band of acceptable wealth and would create an incentive to raise wages – after all, if the average worker makes more, so can the most wealthy.
(Also, full agreement on needing to talk about better labor protections. American labor law is really lax.)
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Decent points. I don’t want to spam my thoughts so I’ll keep it short, I fear corruption beyond the very sound ideas you shared.