What is a PROPER wage? Based on your output being worth 100$ per hour.

$0.00

 

Lol not a chance. Utopia doesn't exist.

 

So, you're working to put more people on the dole and maybe even train them do do nothing.

I see some downside in that plan.

 

Nope. Not looking to put anyone on the dole. Simply saying that what one should expect to be owed by others is $0.00. People don't owe you anything.

 

Ok, but people on the dole is the issue, isn't it?

And, we're talking about wages - not about indolence.

We do have a market economy in labor, but when that goes to zero wages, there is a serious problem that affects you and me as well as those struggling.

 

Except that the wage hasn't gone to zero.

 

What is a fair wage when work slows and that labor earns $0.00?

 

Nobody knows because the price of labor has never been $0.00.

 

A proper wage should be the same vs REAL inflation as it was in 1946, 1953, 1961, 1973, 1981... or in todays world a normal suburb it would be 45$/hour with free healthcare and benfits, 2 weeks vacation and so on. The owner of said business should NOT make more than 10x his lowest paid employee. The owner should be on personal speaking terms with all his employees and know them well, care about them... Other than that he should be sent elsewhere, Russia, Germany, Cuba, or Israel if that is his HOME country.

 

Sounds like you've got some specific ideas on how to run your business. Good luck with your enterprise. I'm sure it will be a success.

 

We had Capitalism correct for a long time. Greed took over under Nixon with removal of the GOLD standard. This allowed us, and other countries to Print all the Fiat they wanted. Create money out of thin air for the rich and those that run the Federal reserve (which is the PRIVATE bank that runs this country, owned and controlled by a Jewish Majority). All facts and honesty always deemed to be NOT True in America. We live on the (I trust you ) mentality.
We then Doubled down on the Greed in the Mid 80s when several really rich greedy guys duped Reagan into cutting the very wealthy peoples taxes, deregulated the banks and big business and you get what we have now. It has grown exponentially to help the few.

Of course the biggest thing most people dont understand is the Billions pushed behind it even today with 50+ "think tanks" paid for by the rich to WRITE articles supporting their Tyranny as "good for you"

 

I hope your smart enough to know it only works when regulated by the Government as it was back then ? Back then we called it Capitalism, today we get people that write to debunk HONEST capitalism. It has to be fair across the board for everyone. No one can just step in and do this because of the greed channels that have been forced upon us by the rich.
Obviously if you can respond, you can do it with some intellect.

 

What makes you think investors would buy stock in such a business?

 

One of the great examples is America allowing any corporation to Move their business to China in the 80s. Back then the REPUBLICAN Angle was "we are here to govern, not tell a business owner what or what he cant do, thus, deregulation" Before this you would be tariff if you moved overseas. That equal to what you pay for product at home. Thus not allowing an unfair competition to the businesses at home. This is basically the PLATFORM the orange psycho used to get voted in...

Now the Republican takes a 180 degree approach and their constituents are none the wiser, mostly because their IQ has dropped 20 points. Without regulations and control we fail, as we do today. Of course many are paid to tell you otherwise.

 

Give me a break, make a sound argument. They did in the 40s - 80s, no ? All must be regulated as it was back then...
You cant just throw out a hypothetical as you have an expect a response, there is none for it. But i am sure, you already knew that too.

 

Okay. Here's my argument. Investors won't invest in a business facing the sort of restrictions you suggest imposing.

 

Cite some evidence, please.

Corporations can plan for pretty much anything that can be counted on by them and their competitors.

 

You want to reduce the profits of a business. This will make such a business less attractive to potential owners.

And not all of their competitors will be placed under the same restrictions you are proposing.

 

Labor has definitely fally below what people can live on.

Zero is just silly and totally irrelevant.

That matters to those who aren't sociopaths.

 

But not zero. We agree that it has never fallen to zero, like you suggested earlier.

Then why did you suggest that priced would drop to zero?

Lot's of things matter to people who aren't sociopaths. Like not considering themselves the ruler of their fellow man. Like not considering other people their piggy banks or their slaves.

 

I didn't propose any inequality. And, I am interested in gdp growth.

Most regulation is about internalizing the costs of the business. For example, using our rivers as sewers is cheap for businesses only if you consider useless rivers of sewage to be the highest value of rivers.

 

Wait, are you now saying that you don't want to curtail the profits of businesses?

 

Not all locations value their rivers, air, and other resources the same. In some places, resources need to be imported, making businesses face unequal conditions for that reason. Some countries have cheap labor, but don't have patent protection, adequate legal enforcement and other factors - making investment unequally attractive for that reason.

If you can't make money without polluting the water and air to an unacceptable extent, then investors should choose something else in which to invest. For example, having the government work to grow the coal industry regardless of costs of pollution is political and artificial - not economic.

 

Suggesting that curtailing profits of businesses is an objective is purposefuly idiotic.

Nobody would conceive of such a goal.

 

I'm not quite sure how we got onto talking about polluting other people's property. Of course, I don't agree with polluting other people's property. Weren't we talking about wages? And how the owner of a company should know every one of his employees by name and care about his feelings? I just don't see how such regulations would not make companies under such a regime less attractive to investors. They would obviously be less profitable than otherwise.