Dumb idea.

Wages reflect productivity, or the supply and demand of labour in an economy. Limiting wages would cause and under-supply of labour on that kind of income, which tends to be highly skilled and highly competitive. You'd probably see some kind of brain drain.

Doesn't quite fit. How would you see an under supply of labor? Or, more important. Why?

Because nobody is going to work in higher positions for no extra pay, provided they'd hit the cap.

Are you talking about just wage labour, or things like capital income too?

No matter the pay.

But there's no incentive to advance or innovate as soon as you hit that ceiling. Sure, you get passionate people who will do it anyway, but most of us need some kind of carrot to get the ball rolling.

>no incentive to advance or innovate

obviously you mean personal incentives, but i mean, that's just kind of hilarious

Ahem:

Sure, you get passionate people who will do it anyway

Quote from: Sandtrap on June 08, 2015, 01:14:14 PM

No matter the pay.

But there's no incentive to advance or innovate as soon as you hit that ceiling. Sure, you get passionate people who will do it anyway, but most of us need some kind of carrot to get the ball rolling.

Plays on selfish then. See. Challenging. Try to change things, or even make an idea, and you get bumps. Know what they should do? They should make a test country. Like a huge social experiment where they change up rules and shit. Anyway. Irrelevant.

Okay.

If it were you. Let's say, that after you hit the wage cap, for every amount of money that is siphoned off away from you, you get benefits.

What kind of benifits would you pick? Let's do some thinking.

i think there's a lot more people like that than you think though

That may be so, but productivity in the labour market doesn't just come from the supply-side. Say you have an executive who's reached the wage ceiling, and he really wants to be Treasury Secretary. But this guy just doesn't get fiscal policy, he's incredibly unproductive at implementing policies around tax and spending.

Let's say he has a PhD in monetary economics, and would make a great central banker. The wages for all three jobs are at the ceiling, so he's essentially got a free choice. But no matter how much prosperity he would secure at the Federal Reserve he still goes for Treasury Secretary because that's his passion, because the Fed has no carrots with which to lure him in to become chairman.

Nevertheless, I'm not even sure why you'd want this policy anyway unless it's out of some spiteful feelings towards the wealthy. Implementing what is essentially a 100pc tax rate on earnings over the ceiling is only going to expropriate savings, which makes everybody poorer.

Quote from: Sandtrap on June 08, 2015, 01:25:33 PM

What kind of benifits would you pick? Let's do some thinking.

Private or state benefits?

I wouldn't pick any regardless, I don't think. Those benefits are still a cost which wouldn't otherwise be there if there were no ceiling, and people who've reached the ceiling are surely wealthy enough to cover their expenses without needing any kind of benefit.

Hmm. Interesting. K. Okay. This is an experiment then. Let's assume we've control of a blank slate for a country. Can play around with laws and regulations and shit. This is all theoretical.

The reason I'd like to do this. I'm sitting here. Costs are going up. Rising exponentially. I'm working two jobs to cover for the rate of prices. I look at this, and I see a problem.

Low and middle class, can't keep up to the rates. Let's assume the rates stay as they are for quite some time.

Doesn't seem fair to me. Because it's no sweat off wealthier people's backs because they can afford it. Doing everything I can, and still am starting to fail.

So. For entertainment, let's see if we can engineer a theoretical system. Just for fun.

For starters. How would you do it? This will be fun, if you work with me on this. Because you're essentially a businessman. And I'm Mr. family morals.

Let's see, if just for the sake of it, can we engineer an idea that plays to both sides?

Quote from: Sandtrap on June 08, 2015, 01:41:19 PM

How would you do it?

How would I stop costs from going up?

No. How would you engineer a system that doesn't fuck people over so hard? Okay. The current system is engineered for the selfish. You can't deny that because you said it yourself.

Most people need carrots to give them a push in the ass to do things. Incentive to make up for their lack of backbone.

Instead of being an electrician because you want to know how, or you like that kind of work, most people go to be electricians because of the money.

The docs aren't docs because they like helping people. They were pushed by their parents because it's a high paying job.

Hokay. Everybody is better at some things than others. That's a fact.

The system does not support that. Doesn't support the lower end of the spectrum. For example. The farmers, up here. These people work their asses off. And, sure, maybe they don't have the heads to go higher places. So they do the best they can.

But they're getting rammed up the ass and they can't do anything about it.

So. How would you restructure a system, that still plays on the benifits of the selfish, but does not fuck the lower end so hard? Basically, how would you make a stable system, that was a little more fair?

Quote from: Sandtrap on June 08, 2015, 01:58:43 PM

The current system is engineered for the selfish. You can't deny that because you said it yourself.

There's a big difference between being selfish and then being incentivised to produce things.

Quote

The system does not support that. Doesn't support the lower end of the spectrum. For example. The farmers, up here. These people work their asses off. And, sure, maybe they don't have the heads to go higher places. So they do the best they can.

Working your ass off doesn't make you productive; if Canadian agriculture is being unproductive it should be allowed to die off, so labour can re-allocate itself. That said, like most countries, Canada also has farm subsidies which keep the inefficiency of the sector alive.

But they're getting rammed up the ass and they can't do anything about it.

Quote

but does not fuck the lower end so hard?

Guaranteed minimum income for people earning nothing, and wage subsidies for people earning below a certain level. While abolishing the minimum wage.

1. That's the very definition of a play on selfish nature. You won't work a job normally because it's a job to be done or because you can. You work a job only because of the benifits given. You don't give a shit about the job. You care about the benefits alone.

Sounds selfish, in my opinion. From my perspective, anyway.

2. Work is work, Meta. When you have no days off in a week, and you're on your feet every day, you can't call that not productive. Snare in that statement.

3. That seems fair. But, there's another issue. The lower class cannot ever compete with the upper class financially. So, here's an example.

Some asshole is using all of his wealth to buy land around the area. He's so wealthy that he can even negotiate with the government on things. AKA having the rights to government owned land because he bought it.

The fuck is somebody working off a bare minimum going to do to buy a home or property when they can't even afford it because the guy up top can basically take the cake and eat it too?

It's not an idea that can be well implemented, because that would require people to care about performance.
The only incentive for people to work harder than others, for the most part, is to make more money.

Why would I go to work every day in a hazardous environment, when some mongoloid who takes calls for a living on no more than a high school diploma makes more money than I do with my equally qualification stressed job?