Should there be a salary cap?

[Penumbra]

Do you think there should be a salary cap or savings cap? By which I mean, if a person makes more than X dollars a year gross income, he pays everything in excess of X to the government as taxes.

If so, what should it be?

I would say that $100,000 is enough for the average person but allowances should be made for certain situations, such as medical expenses (since we don't have universal healthcare).

Personally I am not only for a salary cap, I am also for a net-worth cap. You simply don't need millions and millions of dollars lying around the house when you couldn't possibly spend it all; you don't need a private jet and a private yacht and a 40-room mansion for you, your wife, and two kids.

If someone gave me a salary cap I'd probably stop working as many hours as I do. That seems like a major violation of freedom.

I think a far better solution is just fair taxation. In my book, fair taxation is roughly equal to a flat tax on wealth on a broad statistical scale. But since I don't think wealth taxes are optimal, I think progressive consumption and income taxes to approximate a flat tax on wealth are ideal.

 

[Quintessence]

How is being the boss "right"? A lower position means there is a very good chance my job is generally less stressful, I have less responsibilities and could likely have just as much job satisfaction.

I think maybe you're missing my point a little, but I probably didn't communicate it that clearly. Don't fixate on the word "right." Look at that entire long list of non-material incentives I listed: what I intend to convey is that a person can take on certain life paths for reasons that are not merely material. You do it because it's right for you, you do it because you love it and it is your passion, you do it because it speaks to virtues you cultivate, you do it out of a sense of duty to humans or the environment... any reason that isn't fixated on making money.

Is doing something without monetary incentive really such an unbelievable concept? Some people want leadership roles and responsibilities, regardless of dollar incentive. It's their calling. Honestly, I kind of worry about people who choose certain life paths merely for the money involved. It seems like a pretty shallow reason to me and doesn't speak of good character.

 

[Alceste]

I think maybe you're missing my point a little, but I probably didn't communicate it that clearly. Don't fixate on the word "right." Look at that entire long list of non-material incentives I listed: what I intend to convey is that a person can take on certain life paths for reasons that are not merely material. You do it because it's right for you, you do it because you love it and it is your passion, you do it because it speaks to virtues you cultivate, you do it out of a sense of duty to humans or the environment... any reason that isn't fixated on making money.

Is doing something without monetary incentive really such an unbelievable concept? Some people want leadership roles and responsibilities, regardless of dollar incentive. It's their calling. Honestly, I kind of worry about people who choose certain life paths merely for the money involved. It seems like a pretty shallow reason to me and doesn't speak of good character.

I agree. I am not motivated by money at all, but I still accept and create leadership roles and challenging projects for myself whenever the opportunity arises. I'd rather organize a festival or arts camp from scratch for a pittance than get paid six figures for a dull job with no interesting responsibilities. I just enjoy creating events and programs. It annoys me when people do a bad job of it, and gives me an itch that can only be scratched by doing it myself.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It's different because a prospective employee is often in a position where they can be taken advantage of.

By design Jeff. If it where not so, the employer would do something else with their time.

A company is not a charity who is duty bound to provide for people. A company is only in business to do one thing, make money.

If someone doesn't have work, then the job he's applying for could mean the difference between keeping a roof over his family's head or not. Even if the prospective employer is a completely stand-up guy, it's a skewed situation, so they're not negotiating as equals. The employer is in the position of power in a way that someone buying cable TV isn't.

Not true Jeff, the difference is, the employee is afraid of losing it all and is risk adverse where the employer is better at bluffing.

Employers would be nothing without their employees. If you want more money, you have to quit whoring your wares. Be willing to bluff and quit tucking your tail between your legs.

Seriously man, until you can believe in yourself and walk away from substandard pay and insist on being paid what your worth, you never progress.

Think about it, you go into the office and say, I quit! Why, your employer asks? I have to have more money or I am out of here. You will find out what you are really worth right then and there.

Other people go in with lowered head and ask for a raise. What do you think a business person is going to do when someone just timidly asks?

You have to demand things if you really want them, no one is going to willfully give things to you!

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think there should be a salary cap or savings cap? By which I mean, if a person makes more than X dollars a year gross income, he pays everything in excess of X to the government as taxes.

If so, what should it be?

I would say that $100,000 is enough for the average person but allowances should be made for certain situations, such as medical expenses (since we don't have universal healthcare).

Personally I am not only for a salary cap, I am also for a net-worth cap. You simply don't need millions and millions of dollars lying around the house when you couldn't possibly spend it all; you don't need a private jet and a private yacht and a 40-room mansion for you, your wife, and two kids.

I don't agree with you, but I predict your point of view will become increasingly popular if the divide between rich and poor continues to widen.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

By design Jeff. If it where not so, the employer would do something else with their time.

A company is not a charity who is duty bound to provide for people. A company is only in business to do one thing, make money.Not true Jeff, the difference is, the employee is afraid of losing it all and is risk adverse where the employer is better at bluffing.

Employers would be nothing without their employees. If you want more money, you have to quit whoring your wares. Be willing to bluff and quit tucking your tail between your legs.

Seriously man, until you can believe in yourself and walk away from substandard pay and insist on being paid what your worth, you never progress.

Think about it, you go into the office and say, I quit! Why, your employer asks? I have to have more money or I am out of here. You will find out what you are really worth right then and there.

Other people go in with lowered head and ask for a raise. What do you think a business person is going to do when someone just timidly asks?

You have to demand things if you really want them, no one is going to willfully give things to you!

I think it depends on the industry, though. In the arts, if you walk away from a project in the middle of production because you think you're not getting paid enough, you're blacklisted and have a really difficult time finding any work after that.

I don't know what the labor market is like with your industry, but from my experience, in the arts and entertainment industry demanding higher wages when nobody is paid higher wages anywhere is career suicide.

I'd like to see that changed, however. Just don't know how yet....but somehow someway, I'd like to see dancers earning a living wage and not having to starve or be consistently uninsured or underinsured in health care.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it depends on the industry, though. In the arts, if you walk away from a project in the middle of production because you think you're not getting paid enough, you're blacklisted and have a really difficult time finding any work after that.
I don't know what the labor market is like with your industry, but from my experience, in the arts and entertainment industry demanding higher wages when nobody is paid higher wages anywhere is career suicide.
I'd like to see that changed, however. Just don't know how yet....but somehow someway, I'd like to see dancers earning a living wage and not having to starve or be consistently uninsured or underinsured in health care.

You're facing a fundamental problem with the evils of capitalism: There isn't as much demand for dancers as there
is for electricians or drain cleaners. But dancers, unlike sparkies & turd herders, will do it for low wages out of love.
There is no solution....unless you're willing to stage a violent coup to install a cabal of ruthless dancing despots.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You're facing a fundamental problem with the evils of capitalism: There isn't as much demand for dancers as there
is for electricians or drain cleaners. But dancers, unlike sparkies & turd herders, will do it for low wages out of love.
There is no solution....unless you're willing to stage a violent coup to install a cabal of ruthless dancing despots.

Awwww, don't be a drag, man.

Maybe we can start looking to create an increase in demand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By design Jeff. If it where not so, the employer would do something else with their time.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I can think of a few different ways to take this.

A company is not a charity who is duty bound to provide for people. A company is only in business to do one thing, make money.

A company is still an expression of the will of people, and people aren't exempt from normal ethics just because they're at work.

Not true Jeff, the difference is, the employee is afraid of losing it all and is risk adverse where the employer is better at bluffing.

But they're different levels of risk!

At a company with 100 employees, for instance, one employee represents 1% of the company's profit on average. OTOH, the employee's salary probably represents all or almost all of the employee's income. It's a completely slanted playing field, and an employee who puts their job on the line in a negotiation takes on a huge amount of risk... IMO, much more than the average business person who knows what he's doing would willingly take on.

And even if we just do a straight comparison of dollars, the employee usually has more on the line. It's rare for a company to have a 100% profit margin on their labour costs. Employees generate revenue, but they also create costs. If an employee costs a company $50,000/y and makes the company $70,000/y, then if he leaves, the company's only out $20,000/y. Maybe less if his slack can be picked up by paying other existing employees overtime. Meanwhile, he's out the whole $50,000 a year in salary and benefits.

Seriously man, until you can believe in yourself and walk away from substandard pay and insist on being paid what your worth, you never progress.

Think about it, you go into the office and say, I quit! Why, your employer asks? I have to have more money or I am out of here. You will find out what you are really worth right then and there.

Other people go in with lowered head and ask for a raise. What do you think a business person is going to do when someone just timidly asks?

You have to demand things if you really want them, no one is going to willfully give things to you!

I think it's rather disgusting the way you try to blame employees for a situation that the employer had a hand in creating. Speaking for myself, I found it a lot easier to take that risk, stand on my principles, and walk away from a job (not for salary, but for other reasons) when I had a savings cushion tucked away. If I was living paycheque to paycheque, I probably wouldn't have done that.

And I think it's ridiculous that you think employees should be giving ultimatums to their employers to get raises. The rule of thumb I was taught was that when an employee starts threatening to quit, you should start looking for someone else because he's not going to be around much longer - if he doesn't have another job lined up already, he's going to have one soon. I'm sure most managers realize this too. IMO, threatening to quit is a great way for an employee to say to his employer "This job is just a transaction for me, and I no longer care about maintaining a normal employee-employer relationship."

 

[Falvlun]

Why? because things would be more fair?

Who told you life would be fair?

Money is not distributed, there is nothing fair that has anything to do with this.

Employee's are nothing different than a nut or a bolt or a screw with the exception you have to keep them safe when they work.

Workers are nothing more than a commodity that should be paid market price for their services.

The resources a company has or it's revenues or for that matter what anyone else in the company makes is really none of your business.

When you get hired, you make your deal so live with it or negotiate a better deal if you can.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Who told you life was fair? If it is fine to screw the worker, then why isn't it fine to "screw" the employer? If it is right to limit the pay of the employee, then why isn't it right to limit the pay of the boss?

This has nothing to do with allowing the company to remain viable. It has to do with making the distribution of profits, in the form of salaries and wages, being more equitable.

 

[Alceste]

Awwww, don't be a drag, man.

Maybe we can start looking to create an increase in demand.

I don't know about where you are, but around here burlesque shows always draw a crowd. A paying crowd. It's the feathers.

Also, it makes sense to do a 20's retro event now. that's the last time income disparity has been this extreme. (we all know what happened next, too - just ten years of economic ruin followed by global war).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't know about where you are, but around here burlesque shows always draw a crowd. A paying crowd. It's the feathers.

Also, it makes sense to do a 20's retro event now. that's the last time income disparity has been this extreme. (we all know what happened next, too - just ten years of economic ruin followed by global war).

Hey, it would be really super cool if I were to face my overwhelming fear of balloons by doing a burlesque show where I pop them one by one attached to me. And to do it with flair, too, and never letting the audience seeing me sweat.

But I could always create a dance piece, burlesque or not, based on the theme of economic ruin created by monolithic oligarchy takeovers of industy, military, and religion. Why not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Awwww, don't be a drag, man.
Maybe we can start looking to create an increase in demand.

So full of hope, yet so naive.
An increase in demand will just attract more aspiring dancers who see a chance to perform what they love
while barely scraping by. The only solution I see for you is to make dance practice & performance so unpleasant
& humdrum, that only the most dedicated will stay in the field. Then you'll be on the gravy train for life!

Another approach would be to have severe barriers to entry. Just as engineers & scientists have math class
to weed out the riff raff, perhaps dancers should be allowed to perform only after some grueling degree
program. Make it far too difficult for the average hoofer to cope. I'm just full of great ideas today!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So full of hope, yet so naive.
An increase in demand will just attract more aspiring dancers who see a chance to perform what they love
while barely scraping by. The only solution I see for you is to make dance practice & performance so unpleasant
& humdrum, that only the most dedicated will stay in the field. Then you'll be on the gravy train for life!

Uh-huh....I'm sure the personal computer was making people millions before there was a greater demand for it. And that after it became more common that nobody could find a job in computer science or in software development.

Or a coffee shop that mass-produced baristas around the world? How silly of an idea is that?

Or music CD's. Or rock 'n roll itself. Or how about even internet porn?

How strange that research and development can produce a change in any market, isn't it? Call me naive all you want, ain't gonna stop me, old man.

 

[Alceste]

Hey, it would be really super cool if I were to face my overwhelming fear of balloons by doing a burlesque show where I pop them one by one attached to me. And to do it with flair, too, and never letting the audience seeing me sweat.

But I could always create a dance piece, burlesque or not, based on the theme of economic ruin created by monolithic oligarchy takeovers of industy, military, and religion. Why not?

Do it! A 20s theme and the promise of feathers will get them through the door, then you can show them pretty much anything.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Another approach would be to have severe barriers to entry. Just as engineers & scientists have math class
to weed out the riff raff, perhaps dancers should be allowed to perform only after some grueling degree
program. Make it far too difficult for the average hoofer to cope. I'm just full of great ideas today!

We already have those. They're called auditions.

 

[Revoltingest]

We already have those. They're called auditions.

Not grueling enuf!
Add classes in partial differential equations or tensor calculus to dance programs.
That'll send'm packing! Those of you who survive the ordeal will be rich rich rich.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not grueling enuf!
Add classes in partial differential equations or tensor calculus to dance programs.
That'll send'm packing! Those of you who survive the ordeal will be rich rich rich.

My non-rhyming-I-don't-give-a-**** limerick in response:

Mystic once was an engineering student
And switched to a dance degree
Both were tough
And can make you cry
But dance keeps Mystic's *** in shape

BTW, Laban Dance Notation can confound a grad student as much as any differential equation. So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not grueling enuf!
Add classes in partial differential equations or tensor calculus to dance programs.
That'll send'm packing! Those of you who survive the ordeal will be rich rich rich.

So you want all dancers to be scientists and engineers?

I kinda like it better the other way: Gonzolabs » The “Dance Your Ph.D.” Contest

 

[Revoltingest]

My non-rhyming-I-don't-give-a-**** limerick in response:

Mystic once was an engineering student
And switched to a dance degree
Both were tough
And can make you cry
But dance keeps Mystic's *** in shape

BTW, Laban Dance Notation can confound a grad student as much as any differential equation. So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!

I certainly don't lay claim to intellectual superiority, especially since I can't even correctly spell the branches of math
which I don't understand. Clearly, you must do what it takes to make dance more like turd herding (aka "drain cleaning"),
so that the practitioners will do it only for the money. This will make labor a scarcer commodity.

Nice limerick, btw.
To eschew rhyme & meter entirely, while telling a story with a punchy ending is elegant.
Your poem makes me think of haiku.