Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Why on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Highly Paid Executive Taxation Distribution To Company's Workers

For those making over a million a year, first 10% of taxes goes to the state, the next 90% goes directly to the workers in the company
  (+2, -3)
(+2, -3)
  [vote for,

doctorremulac3, Sep 28 2014

100 top http://www.aflcio.o...0-Highest-Paid-CEOs
some millions [popbottle, Sep 29 2014]

Excessive marginal tax rates http://johnhcochran...xes-and-cliffs.html
[scad mientist, Sep 29 2014]

standard welfare + jobs http://www.wolframa...%2C100%2C1000%5D%29
wolfram illustration : Observe that there is a dip in the middle, reducing the incentive to switch from welfare to work. [mofosyne, Sep 29 2014, last modified Sep 30 2014]

With flat income + jobs http://www.wolframa...%2C100%2C1000%5D%29
wolfram illustration : Curve is now a gradual ramp, thus people are not disincentivised from getting a job [mofosyne, Sep 29 2014, last modified Sep 30 2014]

"Judgment Day", first published in Weird Fantasy #18 (April 1953) http://en.wikipedia...#.22Judgment_Day.22
[mofosyne, Oct 01 2014]

"Judgment Day" comic - CSBG ARCHIVE http://goodcomics.c...ok-moments-day-188/
[mofosyne, Oct 01 2014]

Welfare Cliff http://www.zerohedg...welfare%20cliff.jpg
Ah... so it's worse than I thought (I initially thought it was a welfare dip) [mofosyne, Oct 03 2014]

Welfare’s Failure and the Solution - Presentation http://www.aei.org/...ion_10063532278.pdf
Original source for the Welfare Cliff image [mofosyne, Oct 03 2014]

Voter control of where their money goes Pie_20Chart_20Voting
Usually it pisses people off but this time it seemed pretty well received [doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014]

The idea's been done Haiku_20week
Posted alas long ago - What a bummer man. [doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014]


       Is this really libertarian?   

       Doth makes me think that this scheme might only work if the taxes is of any significant amount.   

       Also, I wonder how much does each worker actually get under the scheme. A those paid over a million may be paid excessively, but they are still sort of a small group.   

       But then again, maybe they are pay so astronomically large that I can't even imagine it properly, and this scheme (with proper tax rate) would actually work.   

       (Also, how would the 90% be split up? This sounds like it could get complex rather fast. And complexity allows for loopholes)
mofosyne, Sep 28 2014

       Why to the workers in that company? Why not to the poorest people in society, or to schemes aimed at helping people more broadly? Why should co-workers benefit more than the rest of the population?   

       OK, I can see that it's an incentive for the workers to work harder, to increase profits that can be fed through the top-earners and thence back to them. And it's an incentive for them not to resent or question the high pay of the executives. So maybe not a completely bad idea.   

       Also, "a million" is no longer a huge salary.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 28 2014

       //Is this really libertarian?//   

       No, not at all, but it's an attempt to try to mitigate what might become a worse solution, government getting yet another vein of money to tap into for their nefarious doings.   

       I'd rather have a mini-socialist idea like this that cuts out the middle man and gets more money into the spending public's hands so they can buy products and stimulate the economy. Government gets it and uses it to ship in voters for their party and drive down wages for the working poor as well as bailing out billionaire speculators when their ponzie schemes fall apart.   

       As far as how it was divvied up, I'd split it up evenly for everybody. In a 900 employee company every person would get 1% of the CEO's 90% tax portion. So if the CEO paid 10 million in taxes, each employee would get ten grand. A pretty nice little Christmas bonus no? That money goes into the community and on the streets as opposed to the coffers of Goldman Sacs or overseas investments.   

       Is my Che Guevara hat on straight? Sounding pretty commie here, but I'm actually being anti big government with this idea.
doctorremulac3, Sep 28 2014

       //Why not to the poorest people in society, or to schemes aimed at helping people more broadly?//   

       Well, presumably that's what we do now, but the gubment gets into the picture and takes a healthy chunk for itself before it gets out to the poor. Like Robin Hood charging a 40% surcharge.   

       I like the idea of a company paying for it's own, then we can fix the rest of the world later. For instance I don't like the tool the commies use in arguments now that Walmart's employees very often get taxpayer funded subsidies because Walmart doesn't pay them enough to live. I hate that argument because it's true.   

       Like I've said before, if they were chimpanzees that Walmart used to stock their shelves and we were supposed to subsidize them for some reason, we'd be outraged. Why any different for people?   

       Point is, I like the idea of undercutting the wasteful corrupt government and helping out the people and the economy more directly.
doctorremulac3, Sep 28 2014

       //the gubment gets into the picture and takes a healthy chunk for itself before it gets out to the poor.//   

       That is probably true, but where does the governments chunk go? If to politicians, then they pay tax on it which will go, presumably, to the lesser politicians. If they squander it on things like law enforcement or the armed services, then presumably the money still ends up going to fairly ordinary people.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 28 2014

       This is unfair. Instead, make sociopathic ladder-climbing illegal.
sninctown, Sep 28 2014

       This is unfair. Instead, make sociopathic ladder-climbing illegal.
sninctown, Sep 28 2014

       //if they were chimpanzees that Walmart used to stock their shelves and we were supposed to subsidize them for some reason, we'd be outraged.//   

       That's true - chimpanzees are a lot more expensive to support than people.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 28 2014

       //This is unfair. Instead, make sociopathic ladder- climbing illegal.//   

       Then where do we get our politicians?
doctorremulac3, Sep 28 2014

pocmloc, Sep 28 2014

       I volunteer to be the highly paid executive.   

       I prefer the Marxist version, where all of my income is equally divided amongst myself.
not_morrison_rm, Sep 29 2014

       So now, when I'm shopping for jobs I should pay attention to executive salary. If it's high enough I know I can accept a smaller salary because I'll be getting a share of his cash.
scad mientist, Sep 29 2014

       Only if his accountant is incompetent enough to let him be eligible for tax.
pocmloc, Sep 29 2014

       aye pocmloc,   

       if we are going through this kind of bureaucratic effort, then we might as well streamline the whole process, and pay everyone in society just enough to meet their basic needs (and get rid of the current complex welfare system).   

       Probably cheaper as well.
mofosyne, Sep 29 2014

       In the UK, employers are responsible for the deduction at source of income tax and national insurance contributions from employee salaries (and then the sums deducted are paid to the taxman), so the part of the idea which deals with the employer administering personal tax payment is at least part baked. The part about remitting tax dollars right into the paws of a group of individuals for them to spend as they please sounds remarkably like the $600 cheques paid under the US Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, the differences here are (a) the selection of recipients and (b) the route that the cash takes to the pocket.
calum, Sep 29 2014

       //if we are going through this kind of bureaucratic effort, then we might as well streamline the whole process, and pay everyone in society just enough to meet their basic needs (and get rid of the current complex welfare system).   

       Probably cheaper as well.//   

       I've read a little bit about proposals for a universal living wage, not without it's upside as far as cutting out waste and bureaucracy which is certainly a problem with the welfare state. Is the idea that everybody gets the same check every month regardless of income or is it only for people under a certain income? My comment is, if it's only for people under a certain income we already have that. If it's for everybody regardless of income it would quickly get pointed out that rich people were getting welfare checks which would probably become an issue when it came time to balance the budget.   

       Here's my opponent's campaign add if I were a politician trying to sell this idea:   

       "Doctorremulac3 thinks his billionaire buddies don't have enough money, so he's proposing welfare checks be sent to them every month! That's taking money out of the mouths of the poor and giving it to the rich! Say no to Doctorremulac3 and his "welfare for the rich" program and vote yes for Doctorremulac4 this November! (paid for by Corrupticon International LLC and the Welfare Scammers Union Local 32)"
doctorremulac3, Sep 29 2014

       The sad thing is [Dr.R3] that's how people think. That's why we have all these complications in the tax code where certain deductions are phased out. That results in a higher marginal rate for certain income ranges and complicates things unnecessarily. I think it would be better to simply lower the starting point for the higher tax bracket, and/or slightly increase the marginal rate in the higher tax brackets, but leave all of the deductions there for everyone. The problem is of course that people would "forget" when the tax bracket got adjusted, so then the next year someone would start saying that it's ridiculous that someone earning $1M a year is getting a child tax credit, so then they'd phase it out again...   

       Another annoying example: With the 0% long term capital gains tax for those in the 15% bracket, when you cross into the 25% bracket, you'll actually be paying a 40% marginal rate if you have long term capitol gains. For every dollar over the threshold you earn, that dollar is taxed at 25%, plus one additional dollar of your capitol gains is taxed at 15% instead of 0%.   

       Now they could do something like just tax everyone 0% on the first $x,000 of capital gains, but if they did, it would be a "tax cut for the rich"
scad mientist, Sep 29 2014

       I think the idea is to avoid punishing people financially for getting a job. If people calculate that they lose welfare money by getting a particular job, then they wont take it. It's not because they are lazy, but that it is insane to want to accept a lower standard of living just to get a job (compared to mooching off welfare).   

       This can be modelled abstractly like this:   

       plot( welfare_reward + job_reward ) = income   

       This is what current model is like:   

       plot( [100,10,0,0] + [0,10,100,1000] )   

       This is what a flat income + job is like:   

       plot( [100,100,100,100] + [0,10,100,1000] )   

       Use wolframalpha.com to view graph, or view link annotations.   

       (note: excluding any consideration of increasing taxes etc...)   

       Notice the removal of the dip, in the middle. Current solution proposed in many countries is to cut down in welfare, which would lead to:   

       plot( [0,10,100,1000] )   

       as the income curve. Now if you superimpose that over 'basic living cost', you will get a not so insignificant portion of the population below the poverty line. In addition a large percentage of workers above the poverty line or just above. This will cause a 'perverse incentive' to accept abuse and substandard pay (thus further limiting their economic potential towards the economy at large).   

       Obviously exact number is uncited, and is purely for illustrative purposes. But that's the current understanding I got about this issue.
mofosyne, Sep 29 2014

       And of course above I complained about the stupid things in the tax code that have affected me, but they really aren't to bad, and I have the means to avoid them somewhat by shifting income between years and whatnot. The issues at the low end of the income scale are much worse as [mofosyne] mentioned (see Excessive marginal tax rates link).   

       How about if we start verbally abusing any politician that votes for a benefit that causes anything more than a 50% marginal rate, and heavily criticize them if they can't get it below say 25%.
scad mientist, Sep 29 2014

       You had me at "How about if we start verbally abusing any politician..."
doctorremulac3, Sep 29 2014

       Not really a Marxist idea. Its thinking more in terms of realpolitik, an institution, in the sense of something instituted, to relieve class conflict rather than the actual revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class and the taking of control of the means of production by the workers. That is something not likely to happen either, but it would also have the latent effect of putting a good deal of social services workers out of employment given their conceivable role as 'middleman', requiring an attitude adjustment for employment in the private sector. That's not to say all social services workers are leftists, but that's not an uncommon disposition for those who work on behalf of the lowliest tier. So I would think very generally that [doctorremulac3] is correct in his right libertarian self-defense. Why this would offend more conservative sensibilities is that it is somewhat contrary to the market, the worker being paid largely based on the scarcity of the services he or she, they, can provide. Thus highly valued commodity-forms, managers, executives etc. would feel this tax as a punishment levied against the fetishism conditioned to their social role, and rewards distributed to the less aspirational. After all companies use rewards to induce productivity, and this policy would undermine industrial psychological control. Although, profit sharing is actually industrial psychology, but the detachment of response and reinforcing stimulus might skew the results.I would imagine that would be another libertarian goal as well. There is much to analyze about this very rich posting, but I'll briefly conclude that knee-jerking and reactionarianism more defines conservatism than actual political science, and some progressive and mutually ideologically beneficial policies are lost to it. An example that springs to mind is the federally defunct Canadian Progressive Conservatives that gave itself a knee-jerk reactionary shit-kicking until all the progressive was bled out and the self-reflexive kneejerking stopped leaving the current Conservative party.
rcarty, Sep 30 2014

       I know this is my idea, but it's pretty cool that this smart crowd is suspicious of any idea that seeks to re-distribute wealth from the bad guys to the good guys via the morally anointed guys who seem to always end up with a healthy chunk of the re- distributings.   

       Problem with any wealth distribution plan is it's almost always bad guys doing the re-distributing, and a lot of the wealth gets re-distributed their way.   

       But to try to sell this idea that I'm admittedly lukewarm on myself, I'll just say that at least this more directly tracks that money from evil and horrible rich person to good and virtuous worker and bypasses the positively divinely and saintly money re- distributors altogether.
doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2014

       The story has been filtered through time to be about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, ironically the battle cry of big gubment.   

       But you're absolutely right, Robin Hood was an anti big taxation Libertarian activist.
doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2014


       Yea, I'm not a big fan of distribution of funds via complex bureaucratic rulebooks.   

       With tackling issues like poverty, we should either commit fully, or not at all. Not this current half-assed feelgood approach. (The illusion of doing something is much worse than not doing anything at all, for you would tolerate pain that should be addressed in the long term.)   

       Hence instead of trying to work out who is in deserving of our 'pity payment', we should simply mandate that everyone has a certain base income needed to survive. Biggest benefit in terms of bureaucracy is that corruption is harder to occur, since any deviation in payment can be detected faster. Simpler calculations also allows for the use of automated computer systems to perform the distribution of funds with minimal engineering (relatively compared to complex welfare rule system, which still leaves many people disadvantaged, especially if they try to get a job)   

       Most importantly of all, the incentive curve is now a gradual ramp. Much like how many good internet MMO works (Seriously, you can learn a lot about society from it. e.g. how people behave in a pandemic). Just look at the curve in the link annotation in this page, for a visual illustration.
mofosyne, Sep 30 2014

       Not averse to the idea just for the way it would undercut the bureaucratic waste, just not sure how amenable big government types will be to having their current cash pipeline re-directed away from them.   

       I try to be careful not to look askance at an idea just because the commies might do it. I think the best way to fight totalitarian communism is to have a free market economy that actually delivers on the goodies that communism promises to everybody but can't deliver. Problem is, commies promise everything and don't give a damn about delivering it once they get in power so you need to sell capitalism with a sales line better than "Sink or swim buddy, every man for himself." Well funded social programs, safety nets and real upward mobility are important to keeping a free market free in my opinion.
doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2014

       I bet the same thought process is with the Chinese (and other commies) :   

       > "I think the best way to fight totalitarian capitalism is to have a free social economy that actually delivers on the goodies that capitalism promises to everybody but can't deliver. Problem is, capitalistic people promise everything and don't give a damn about delivering it once they get in power so you need to sell socialism with a sales line better than "taken money from rich, give to poor." Well funded social programs, safety nets and real upward mobility are important to keeping a free social economy free in my opinion."— commie doctorremulac3   

       lol. Well in the end of the day, you can call this socialist or capitalistic. But I like to think that this is more of a progress towards a post scarcity society outlined by the "Unrealistic Idealism"(TM) of Star Trek (Yup, heard that already).   

       And hey, science fiction is always a good place to learn more about the future, as they have covered controversial opinions like race relation before it was popular/accepted. ( E.g. "Judgment Day", first published in Weird Fantasy #18 (April 1953) . Link to wiki page on annotation. )
mofosyne, Oct 01 2014

       Not a quote. More of a rewording of doctorremulac3 opinion to demonstrate the current convergence of society and ideology in a global scale.   

       Much like the convergence of everything in your pocket into a smartphone.   

       And yes I agree with you that currently 'social utility' valued too low. You only need to look at how social workers, and teachers are payed. Don't forget long term investment in future proofed infrastructures. These damages are not easily seen in a financial year, but will rear it's ugly head a decade later many times over.
mofosyne, Oct 01 2014

       Teachers need to be replace by computers too. No reason an intelligent kid can't have his PHD by 13 or 14 with a properly tuned educationbot.   

       A bunch of kids sitting in a room watching somebody talk? Same way they did it two thousand years ago, slow and inefficient. Unacceptable.   

       Plus you get special guest teachers like synthetic Einstein, Edison, Socrates, Plato. Want to learn physics from Edward Teller? Done. Want to debate with Kierkegaard or Nietzsche? Go for it. Try that at Party-Till- You-Puke U.
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       Well, supposedly they're the best and the brightest, maybe they could get jobs.   

       The teachers teaching creative writing could actually go out and write a best selling novel for instance. The teachers of classes like "Marxist Existentialism In the Post Modern Racist Trans-gender America" could learn the practical application of the synergistic link between mop and bucket and become janitors I suppose.   

       No wait, robots should be doing that too. Yea, sitting around on welfare would probably be the backup plan for many. They're practically there anyway with the 3 months a year they take off while those of us who chose to leave school go to work.   

       I tease but it's all in fun. I have a friend who's a college professor but he teaches computer science so I'm allowed to rag on the other professors who teach the more "socially relevant" courses that he thinks are a bunch of PC knuckleheads.
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       There are only so many goods that people need to survive. There are only so many hours in a day to mess around with luxury goods. There are only so many workers required to make them.   

       At some point, if people no longer had to work in order for society to function but somehow had their needs met, wouldn't that be some sort of Star Trek ideal?   

       What is the difference between that and welfare?   

       //I tease but its all in fun.//   

       So says the classic passive-aggressive.
RayfordSteele, Oct 01 2014

       // There are only so many goods that people need to survive. There are only so many hours in a day to mess around with luxury goods //   

       But there is no limit to the quantity/expense of the luxury goods that a person can mess around with and/or waste in those limited hours. There is also no shortage of people who are willing to consume extravagantly while other humans on this planet are suffering from lack of food and simple medical care.
scad mientist, Oct 01 2014

       Rather than address ludicrous wage disparity, this is a redistribution scheme that, one, maintains the entitlement that (many/most?) high-earners feel about their salaries and, two, provides them with an undeserved sense of charity and/or persecution.   


       Whenever Bill Gates convinces some billionaire to donate half their fortune to charity, it's great, yeah sure, nice -- but why the fuck does this person have so much money in the first place? Why are the billionaires the ones who decide which causes are funded? They won the game of capitalism, good for them, but that does not mean they have anything worthwhile to contribute to humanity, aside from the wealth that they hoarded in the first place.   

       Oh, but they worked hard and are self-made, etc (sarcasm). Ha ha. Most were born to privilege or were very lucky. And even if not, did they work so hard that they deserve 1000x times the amount of money that most people will never earn in their entire lifetime?   

       Does it not occur to these people that collecting so much money is kind of fucked up considering the abject poverty that most of humanity lives in? If my salary was even remotely close to a million dollars (and it never will be), I'd be looking over my shoulder every day.   

the porpoise, Oct 01 2014

       Luke 12 comes to mind.
RayfordSteele, Oct 01 2014

       US median household income is around $50,000. Worldwide median household income is around $850.   

       If you think you ought to be looking over your shoulder if you make $1 million (20 times the median). Then we here in the US (and many other countries of similar wealth) ought to really be looking over our shoulders since we're earning 60 times the worldwide median.   

       And by the way, I was including myself in those who would live extravagantly while others are starving. While I voluntarily give a portion of my income to help those in need, and I try not to waste too much money (by my standards), by the standards of many people in the world, I live a very extravagant life. I am unwilling however to give away all but $850 of my yearly income. I'm even unwilling to give away all but $50,000.   

       In one sense, I really don't deserve the extravagant salary I receive. On the other hand I studied hard in school while my friend were goofing off. I took a risk paying for college, and I worked hard to develop skill that are rare. On the other other hand I'm really lucky that I was born with natural abilities and a love of doing a type of work that pays well. My sister who works much harder than me earns much less than me. She had to work really hard to even graduate from high school, so in our market, it's not surprising that her strenuous efforts are not valued as much as my less dedicated efforts, but is it really "fair"?   

       It may be true that most billionaires got there based on more than just personal hard work and risk taking, but that's true of me and also true of the person in the US earning $50k compared to someone earning $850. NO ONE is qualified to make the arbitrary decision about what degree of wealth is too extreme, what lifestyle is too extravagant, and how much reward there should be for extra effort. Attempting to reduce income inequality through redistribution is a game that is inherently unfair. The correct way to improve the situation is to work towards leveling the playing field in terms of opportunity, but that's much more difficult than passing a law requiring rich people to give money to poor people.
scad mientist, Oct 01 2014

       //I tease but its all in fun.//   

       //So says the classic passive-aggressive.//   

       Grab a juice box and take a nap Ray, the grown ups are talking here.   

       I wonder what the people with the billions think about the situation. I'm sure some of them ironically think it's unfair as well. I know philanthropy is big among the super rich and some of the billionaires mentioned here have said most of their fortunes will be left to charity instead of their kids. If that's the case it's certainly a plus for the disadvantaged no?   

       I mean if it's a moral dilemma I'm not sure what more a rich person can do than to give it all away when they die.
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       They can choose not to hoard money in the first place. 3 or 4 of the richest Americans run a company that employs legions of working poor in the US and China. There are cooperatives and sane corporations where executive pay, while still high, is at least comparable to front line pay. The choices and examples are there for all to see.   

       I view it as hoarding. A disorder. One that happens to affect others.
the porpoise, Oct 01 2014

       I see what you're saying, but then you get into questions of whether people in a village in China were better off before the factory to make Sponge Bob Squarepants toys was set up. I'm thinking there's a reason people come in from the fields of an agrarian society and move into the factories, even shitty ones, of an industrial society. Sitting there painting nipples on Barbie dolls all day is still a better way to make a living than working in a rice paddy.   

       Or maybe not. Maybe poor people are better off clawing a living out of the dirt than making money for rich people. But if so, how come they make the change?
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       Nothing wrong with choosing to leave the farm to earn more. My comment were more about hoarding and redistribution. As in why not pay people enough in the first place so that charity is not so needed?
the porpoise, Oct 01 2014

       Well, that's sort of what this idea is. Say if you make a certain amount of money from a company it needs to be distributed to some extent among the workers.   

       Sort of a compartmentalized communism. Good idea? What the hell do I know? Just an idea.
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       //we here in the US (and many other countries of similar wealth) ought to really be looking over our shoulders since we're earning 60 times the worldwide median.//   

       Good point. Maybe there should be a threshold for this over-the-shoulder-looking business. I suggest that wealthy people of any country start looking over their shoulders if their salary is more than 60 times their national average.   

       In other words, if it's OK for the average American to earn 60x more than the average human, then it's OK for a wealthy American to earn 60x more than the average American. This would put the shoulder threshold, for Americans, at 60x $50,000, or about $3M.   

       In the UK, average wage is about £25k, putting our shoulder threshold at £1.5M. Of course, if I were earning that I could probably pay someone in India to look over their shoulder on my behalf.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 01 2014

       10 points to MB for the most interesting aspect of this discussion so far: a class regard metric, allowing the rich to cast a strangely parabolic gaze over the ranks of the lower- and middle-middle class to the working poor and beyond, as if Cleese were somehow unable to see Barker and instead only have patronising eyes for Corbett. This leaves the Guardian-reading middle class happily able to disregard the consumers of the gutter press and instead bleed their hearts over the plight of Scotch doorsleepers and various other pallid and near emaciated unfortunates.
calum, Oct 01 2014

       Hang on a mo. I just realized that the average American earns more than the average Englishman. Something is seriously out of whack here.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 01 2014

       So what are rich people looking over their shoulder for? "The Revolution"? tm (all television rights reserved)   

       I think the revolution, like the second coming of the savior be he Thrall, Krufu or the Floating Spaghetti Monster is a tool to keep the poor in their place.   

       Don't make the best of what you have by lifting yourself up through education and self betterment, put your trust in me and my revolutionary organization or church and wait patiently for the goodies to rain down from heaven. When is that revolution/second coming due? Any time now, just be patient and let me handle everything. Besides, you wouldn't want to anger the Politburo or God would you?   

       I like the idea of giving money to the poor if we could just cut the scumbag government types out of the equation. I feel absolutely no guilt about cutting those folks off financially.
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       The moneyless society is possible, in fact it's the most likely possibility for the majority of the world's people. I've been pro-austerity in a number of ways, environmentalism, minimalism, antiworkerism. A proausterity that differs from that of the ruling class of state austerity who enjoy another type of anti-austerity. That's like the difference between antipoverty activists that actually like the poor, and those who want to solve moneylessness as a social problem. The difference is that there is an inherent moneylessness in some ways of being, that are ultimately rendered irrational by capitalism which emphasizes capital accumulation as the highest actualization.
rcarty, Oct 01 2014

       Money for goods might well become too much work to bother with but man will still want to secure land somehow. Not sure what the means of buying land will be in a labor free society. Probably the same as it's always been. The most aggressive asshole gets the most land.
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       As good a guess as any. My crystal balls are a little cloudy on the subject of what we'll fight about, I'm just pretty sure we'll find something though.
doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014

       > certain amount of money from a company it needs to be distributed to some extent among the workers. Sort of a compartmentalized communism. Good idea? What the hell do I know? Just an idea. — doctorremulac3, Oct 01 2014   

       For Your Information: What you are calling for is called Fordism, named after Henry Ford. (He pretty much boosted the entire economy by paying everyone a higher than standard wage. His company didn't sink but grew, mostly because he introduced the assembly line technique)   


       > Fordism is "the eponymous manufacturing system designed to spew out standardized, low-cost goods and afford its workers decent enough wages to buy them".   

       Basically, he was warning against exactly this kind of issue. And he is not a commie btw.
mofosyne, Oct 02 2014

       Thanks, I did not know that about Ford.   

       There are other companies that do this nowadays. I go out of my way to patronize them.
the porpoise, Oct 02 2014

       That's great. It's all about proportion of companies with the power to actually affect the economy though. Because at the individual company level, they are making a sacrifice. Which places them at a disadvantage compaired to less compassionate companies who could get better profit margins by pushing the cost of paying less than survival rate. Forcing worker to rely upon food stamps and welfare.   

       Hence the notion of privatised profit and socialized loss.   

       Your help is needed and at least would slow down the collapse.
mofosyne, Oct 02 2014

       //(Fordism) Basically, he was warning against exactly this kind of issue. And he is not a commie btw.//   

       Thank you Mo, I can't tell you how happy I am to see an intelligent comment addressing of this issue that doesn't come from the same tired old "Beat up the rich then give their money to the poor" solution.   

       Yes, Ford brought the car to the average man, boosted the economy, made a lot of people rich and basically helped everybody he touched. I believe he had free medical care for all his workers as well yes?   

       So my question for you: Fordism, how do we bring it back?   

       I, like Ford am anything but a commie, but I really hate the idea of one of the richest families in the world, the Wals of Walmart fame getting my tax dollars to subsidize their workers while they rake in the bucks.   

       Now THAT'S communism in my opinion. Difference is it's communism for the rich. Like when the government bails out Wall Street.   

       As a capitalist I'm saying that Walmart and Wall Street need to get their pinko commie hooks off of my tax dollars.
doctorremulac3, Oct 02 2014

       Would it be better to not call yourself "capitalist" or "socialist" in the first place?   

       The world is too complex to lock yourself in one mode of thinking. Why don't I hear people call themselves "post- scarcitist"? (then again, it doesn't really roll off the tongue well)
mofosyne, Oct 02 2014

       If you're proposing effectively raising peoples' working wages to something that's livable, then I'd say that conversation is rather baked.   

       One reason Fordism worked was because he had a competitive advantage in the assembly line that sustained his business beyond what many of his competitors put together. He survived by eating their lunch. Autos were a growth market then. Today the scene is more complex.
RayfordSteele, Oct 02 2014

       //Would it be better to not call yourself "capitalist" or "socialist" in the first place?//   

       Tell you one thing, the old left vs right paradigm sure doesn't fit into the situation here. I'm pro capitalism so I'm supposed to be a right wing pro Walmart and Wall Street guy right? Ok, well, I'm not. So my next choice is supposedly having a massive centralized wasteful government leveling the playing field with a sledge hammer? Well, I'm against that too.   

       I'm certainly not a moderate. That implies not being pissed off, but both left and right wing menus don't appeal to me at this point. And even though I'm a Libertarian, I believe in some socialist social programs.   

       Fordism I guess is as good as anything. Me and maybe 2 other people in the world. Wow, real powerful lobby. Sheesh.
doctorremulac3, Oct 02 2014

       Haha well then here yet another term for you to learn. Post-Fordism   

       Again by wikipedia:   

       Post-Fordism is characterized by the following attributes:
* Small-batch production
* Economies of scope
* Specialized products and jobs
* New information technologies
* Emphasis on types of consumers in contrast to previous emphasis on social class
* The rise of the service and the white-collar worker
* The feminization of the work force

       Perhaps a parallel can be seen in the aspect of "Cyberpunk" vs "Post-Cyberpunk". Or maybe not.
mofosyne, Oct 02 2014

       I for one would label myself an incredibly-pissed off moderate. But definitely not a libertarian.
RayfordSteele, Oct 02 2014

       Well, I like about half of those:   

       * New information technologies * Emphasis on types of consumers in contrast to previous emphasis on social class * The rise of the service and the white-collar worker * The feminization of the work force   

       How about "Neo-post-modern-Fordist"?   

       Wow, talk about introducing yourself in a way that would turn people off immediately. "Hi, I'm a Neo- post-modern-Fordist, do you care? No? Ok, I'll just go to the other side of the bar and finish my drink."   

       Oh well, back to the tired old left vs right wing slap fight.
doctorremulac3, Oct 02 2014

       It sounds to me like where you want to live is Germany.
RayfordSteele, Oct 02 2014

       Fordism is just the hypersignification of exact social formation for a historical sociology, not unlike how referent to Nazi Germany abound sometimes via 'Godwins Law', that explains such phenomena of fascism being contained in Britain likely due to existing historical referents from the Calvin and Hobbes golden age. This ubiquity of political scientific social referents is a credit to any society in the mass regulation of political ideology. However, reference to a fordism as a political ideology that can be satired a la Brave New World, or a particular totalitarianism in 1984. This should indicate a way of experiencing politics that is collectively understood, and is reflected in 'Godwins Law' as a satirical rule that is actually instead a cleverly disguised social comment. Netanyahu recently drew parallels to ISIS and Iran and Nazi Germany. This should be considered a significant signifying event. The major factor he identified was 'superior race' = 'superior faith' analogy which I think there is a natural hesitation in seeing the equivocation, however I had made a similar comment to [bigsleep] just before that the faith tends to indicate that there should be a sovereign and that people should worship that state, when in actuality you can have a society where all the doctrines are subject to eventual overthrow in a parliamentary/ congressional style debating system, and other liberal institutions. As long as you can keep conservatives contained in liberal institutions nazis will likely not come back, but if they somehow get inside socialist or conservative institutions then they can better achieve full communitarianism without people acting too liberally and disrupting the discourse based social order. After all the iron cage of neoliberalism, can be seen as a similar confinement of rationality that is political economic rather than just a political confinement, as in the former sense. As much as I like conservatives in a political iron cage, I disagree that everyone should necessarily have to embody the deconstructed rationality moral code of economic liberalism a la Ayn Rand especially when that form of collectivism gets to Neoliberal level proportions.
rcarty, Oct 02 2014

       How is it possible that the Turing Prize continues to go unclaimed when it's completely obvious that [rcarty] is an AI.
theircompetitor, Oct 02 2014

       Gah... Am I terribly uninformed...   

       Just reviewed what I understood. I thought there was the issue of a 'welfare dip', in terms of disincentives to getting a job. If you look at the appended image. It's more like a bloody cliff.   

       Goes to show that even I can be misinformed, and the world could actually be worse than I think. (Similar to seeing the difference between people's perception of what's fair, and what's actually happening in terms of economic distribution)
mofosyne, Oct 03 2014

       That cliff is great for business. If you look at welfare for what it is, a product that people make money distributing just like corn syrup or carburetors, the people who make their living distributing that product are going to want that product to be popular. What better way to make welfare popular than to be able to say to the consumers "Ok, you can work a lot and get a bunch of money, or work a better job or work harder and get less money."? Welfare is a business, and business is good.   

       The product also has some great salesman. Despite what the product does to people in the long term, (go look at a welfare community, but make sure it's during the day and your doors are locked) it's sold as some beneficial salve that takes away the evil of man through liberal applications of largess and kindness. To question the concept of telling one group of people that they need to support another group of people is verboten as is questioning whether it's good for the people on welfare themselves.   

       My opinion is it's the new and improved slavery. You've still got a master, you just don't have to work for them. The state replaces the hated bourgeoisie family unit, the dad is replaced by the welfare check and the people are thus subjugated wards of the state. The ranks of the poor swell, the middle class shrinks, and the state grows, and grows and grows.   

       I know I've said that when robots do everything we'll all be on welfare, but we're not there yet. This is still government taking one group of people's time and effort and giving it to another group for the benefit of the government to the detriment of everybody except that government. Don't forget, when welfare was given it's big debut in the 1960s it was billed as a tool to fight the "War On Poverty". How that working out?   

       Great links by the way Mo. I'm a big fan of actual numbers like you've shown.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014

       Meanwhile, the idea - it sounds quite Japanese to me. I haven't been to Japan but I understand that, whereas there's not much public welfare, there's an understanding that large employers look after their people. This idea sounds like that. However, in Japan, it's implemented not through legislation but through culture. It might be incompatible with a multi-cultural society.
pertinax, Oct 03 2014

       Hey, cultural pressure can be as strong as legal pressure.   

       It seems to me, once you've gotten your first ten billion to cover your basic survival needs, the rest is just showing off. So if showing off is your game at that point, what better way to show off than to put your face on tv saying "Hi, I'm Doctorremulac3 of Remucon Omnicorp Worldwide. I want to show you how my workers live. Here I am ceremoniously taking 60% of my paycheck and giving it out to each worker divided evenly like I do every holiday season. Here's me with the big oversize check for $50,000 that's going towards the Johnson family's new car and a trip to Hawaii for the whole family. Be sure to send me a postcard!"   

       I don't know, sounds like a quick way to get anointed "Most awesome CEO of the year". Of course the commies would hate you even more but who cares what they think anyway? Their solution to everything is war and gulags.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014

       //have two governments running in parallel and vote by giving your tax to the government of your choosing.//   

       I've always said a tax form ballot that you fill out every month deciding where your money goes would be the ultimate form of democracy.   

       Boy does that idea bring out the haters.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014

       True, but if you remember what RayfordSteele said:
> One reason Fordism worked was because he had a competitive advantage in the assembly line that sustained his business beyond what many of his competitors put together. He survived by eating their lunch. Autos were a growth market then. Today the scene is more complex.

       So essentially, what you are advocating is 'charity' by Upper Management, which is not a bad thing. But really only works when you are ahead of the pack, and have extra cashflow to spare after investing in the future.   

       It's similar to the argument that 'charity' doesn't replace 'welfare'. In the sense that if I donate signification amount of money to solving poverty individually. I am putting myself at a financial disadvantage compared to those who are less empathetic. This applies to both corporate, and individual levels.   

       Acts of charity is not an issue for those with enough 'free money' to share. But it is a much more difficult proposition if you don't have much to spare after saving for your emergency fund.   

       Henry Ford was able to do as he did, because he was a visionary, and a true innovator. Not only did he realize the interdependence of resources within a company context, he also realized that it applies in the winder social context as well. (Flow of resources in an assembly line, vs flow of money in a society, aka the money cycle)   

       --- Had more thoughts, but cut for brevity sake ---   

       In the end of the day, I think the best approach is not to restrict the idea of redistribution to purely a corporate context. Which I think may lead to a situation like Japan, where a person is trapped working for a company (and the boss is morally restricted to keeping under performing workers).   

       Instead, a weekly payment every week that exactly matches the poverty line, is a better proposition. To sum up, basically I see poverty as a systemic issue that requires a systemic response, and that restricting redistribution to only a organization will risk increasing the stratification of society (based on corporate affiliations rather than class perhaps). { I can understand the desire to absolutely cut welfare, but I rather not have my neck slit by the pitchforks of the poor mobs }   

       I'm for a fixed distribution of basic income to everyone, specifically to avoid the welfare cliff. And philosophically, because I feel that working should be an act of 'wanting' not 'needing', and that people perform better when they do things they 'want' rather than 'need'.   

       It's similar to how a child in an abusive household don't perform as well as a child in a supportive and encouraging household. Not rocket science to see that this can also apply in a country or civilization context. Since civilization, is at the end of the day, all about ensuring that people can live in harmony with each other.
mofosyne, Oct 03 2014


       ... tax form ballot ...   

       Never heard of that idea, it sounds like a new half baked idea to me. bigsleep, if it's your new idea, please post it! Before doctorremulac3 steals your spotlight! :D
mofosyne, Oct 03 2014

       See link for one of the incarnations of this I've suggested. This one didn't seem to generate a lot of anger, but I've discussed this elsewhere and gotten a serious dose of Godwin's law.   

       The general consensus is that if you allow people to directly decide where their money goes they'll spend it all on lottery tickets, donuts and fortified wine.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014

       //situation like Japan, where a person is trapped working for a company   

       Yes, astounding lack of horizontal movement between companies, you resign from one and then have to go right to the bottom in the new company...   

       //(and the boss is morally restricted to keeping under performing workers)   

       Sort of. If they are really brain-dead (male) or the company thinks they might be thinking about having kids (female) they get shunted into a broom closet-like office and then have to do meaningless stuff all day until they are persuaded to "voluntarily" resign.   

       On the other hand highest:lowest salaries ratio in Japan is about 40, unlike yer McD worker compared to Bill Gates...
not_morrison_rm, Oct 03 2014

       //...not unlike how referent to Nazi Germany abound sometimes via 'Godwins Law', that explains such phenomena of fascism being contained in Britain likely due to existing historical referents from the Calvin and Hobbes golden age.//   

       Rcarty, but can you get the same point across in a haiku format? Now THAT would be impressive.   

       Seriously, not being facetious. That would be awesome.   

       Let me try one of mine.   

       "The ruling shepherds   

       The angry shep vote en masse   

       Step carefully comrade"   

       In other news, Doctorremulac3 announced his official retirement from writing poetry. "We read the writing on the wall. It's just not his thing." said a spokesman.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014

       But you could be on to something there, [doctor] - Do we have a halfbakery idea or category here where the idea itself is required to be posted in haiku form?
normzone, Oct 03 2014

       Darn it, somebody beat me to it. (link)   

       I think there should just be a category: Other: Haiku format posts/annos.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2014

       //Nice haiku//   

       Thank you. I like the way I wrote "shep" 'cause it was like, artistic license 'n stuff. Sounds like the way people in Wales might say it, or maybe old timey talk.   

       Hey! Where'd my compliment go?   

       Nurse, we've done all we can, I think we need to call it. This thread's dead. Note the time, call in the family.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2014

       Just read about the new left, and thought about writing something about zero stroke as a socially caused mental disorder and put an end to psychiatric neoliberalism for good and the entire diagnostic regime. Reducing individual behavior to a societyless vacuum, does not acknowledge the computations a person has to make to participate in reality, and in effect denies the existence of a significant part of reality.
rcarty, Oct 05 2014

       I completely disagree. No, wait... I completely agree. Except for the parts where I don't.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2014

       I wouldn't be against looking at the coincidence. I'm really just saying that the schizophrenic lives in neoliberalism and the schizophrenic needs to comprehend neoliberalism to participate in meaningful transactional exchange that actually has meaningful value.
rcarty, Oct 05 2014


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle