consider a maximum wage?

 

 

 

Someone was ranting to me about why public transit was so expensive here in Toronto. One of the reasons is because the union demands a wage increase for TTC workers pretty much annually. Just earlier this year, they even went threatened to strike for it. Same thing with the auto companies in the US where these people get paid more with more benefits than people who work for non-American companies.

 

 

 

If you're performing an unskilled labor (ie. driving a bus), should you get paid 4x the minimum wage just because the union says so?

 

 

 

Before anyone asks, yes inflation is already taken into account.

A maximum wage would go against one of the basic principals of capitalism - that something is worth what its buyer will pay for it. That said, many unions have gotten far too powerful, and are literally sucking the life out of the companies they formed under (the UAW for example). Laws need to be passed that break the back of the unions and get them back to their founding purpose.

That's something I've always wondered, why would someone who does the same, simple task, every 30 seconds, get paid $22+ and hour? Unions have gone out of control with always pushing for further wage increases every time a strike ends. It's even worse for schools. Just recently the TA's at my brother's university went on strike, meaning that classes are post-poned until the strike ends. I'm pretty sure the strike has been going on 2-3 weeks now, even though they could have just as easily started negotiations during the summer. But no, they had to wait until well after the course refund date, more than halfway through the first semester. They are holding my brother's school hostage, and are asking for a 50% wage increase over the next 3 years, more job security, and I'm pretty sure there was mention of benefits. I know not the conditions they were working in before.

A maximum wage would go against one of the basic principals of capitalism

 

This. If there was a cap on how much we could earn, the jobs that should have been paid much higher for won't get done, because people think, 'well no point being a lawyer or surgeon, I can just do a normal managerial job and get paid what I would for those jobs'.

If you spend the time/resources to go though college, you deserve a good job. My dad works as a GM plant manager and gets paid like 37 bucks an hour. Most workers there get paid around 27.50. My dad never wnt to college, he just scored a lucky job 40 years ago. My uncle who went though college works at the State Farm insurance HQ as a tech guy. He basically makes sures everything works and is secure. He makes nearly 60 bucks an hour. My point is, if you work for it, you should get it, if you don't, then you don't deserve it.

A maximum wage would go against one of the basic principals of capitalism

 

This. If there was a cap on how much we could earn, the jobs that should have been paid much higher for won't get done, because people think, 'well no point being a lawyer or surgeon, I can just do a normal managerial job and get paid what I would for those jobs'.

 

 

 

I don't think we would cap the maximum wage low enough that there would be no point in furthering your education and instead working some menial job for close to minimum wage. There would have to be incentive to do higher end jobs otherwise, as you said, they just wouldn't get done.

Not necessarily, but I don't think any CEO deserves to be making 200 million dollars while they're laying off workers :roll:

Not necessarily, but I don't think any CEO deserves to be making 200 million dollars while they're laying off workers :roll:

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't mind CEO's like Bill Gates getting rich, because he did way more good for others than himself.

I also think CEO's need a wage cap and it should probably be relative to the value of their company AND the predicted value of their company. No more sitting on multi-million dollar salaries twidiling their thumbs while stores are closing down, workers are being laid off and the company is collapsing around them.

A wage cap on CEOs wouldn't be that big of deal, most of their money comes from their bonuses and increased value of their stock. I know a few CEOs just get a $1 a year salary, and are still billionaires.

A maximum wage would go against one of the basic principals of capitalism - that something is worth what its buyer will pay for it.

 

 

 

Same goes for minimum wage right? But this is for unskilled labour only. You have an option to escape this roof by moving into something considered a "skilled" labour. Get a certificate / diploma / degree / etc.

 

 

 

If you spend the time/resources to go though college, you deserve a good job. My dad works as a GM plant manager and gets paid like 37 bucks an hour. Most workers there get paid around 27.50. My dad never wnt to college, he just scored a lucky job 40 years ago. My uncle who went though college works at the State Farm insurance HQ as a tech guy. He basically makes sures everything works and is secure. He makes nearly 60 bucks an hour. My point is, if you work for it, you should get it, if you don't, then you don't deserve it.

 

 

 

Note that I said unskilled labour. These are menial labour like driving a bus / janitorial work / etc. Your family who went to college won't be affected by this limit.

only reasonable max wage I can see is to prevent someone from earning 200mil in one year and such

 

 

 

not an expert on economics so I cant really go into detail on aything about min max wages

A maximum wage would go against one of the basic principals of capitalism - that something is worth what its buyer will pay for it.

 

 

 

Same goes for minimum wage right? But this is for unskilled labour only. You have an option to escape this roof by moving into something considered a "skilled" labour. Get a certificate / diploma / degree / etc.

 

I'd rather not pile everyone into colleges and universities. I know this may be elitist, but universities are not meant for half the population to go to so they can be called "skilled labourers". We should provide the minimum wage and support trade unions to prevent exploitation of unskilled labour, which no matter how developed a country is, is still needed. As far as trade unions go, it's not like they just ask and get what they want. Almost always, what they get follows years and years of difficult campaigning, and any strike action usually has to be justified, especially in the public sector. This was shown during the police trade union strikes here last year. I don't think any of the other trade unions supported it - it was wholly unjustified.

 

 

 

I don't really care what wage CEO's get paid. snipersas is right, it's not right by capitalism that you decide what a CEO gets paid. Instead, they should pay more in tax, so we can pay for an expansion in the public sector to pick the workers those CEOs will inevitably let down in the long run up off the ground.

A maximum wage would go against one of the basic principals of capitalism

 

This. If there was a cap on how much we could earn, the jobs that should have been paid much higher for won't get done, because people think, 'well no point being a lawyer or surgeon, I can just do a normal managerial job and get paid what I would for those jobs'.

 

If we took all money earned exceeding the cap of maximum wage, and used that for education, this would not be the case. I everyone who wanted could get a free education, there would be a lot more people willing to do those jobs, not for the money, but because they have the interest of doing that job. If someone gets a job because of the money, how much do they care about the job?

No, it doesn't work. The top tax band in the UK used to be something like 90% in the 1970's which might as well have being a maximum wage - and that didn't work very well, rich people just left the country or evaded it in other ways to avoid paying it. (the amount of money raised from income tax actually increased when the top rate was reduced to 40-something%).

This was shown during the police trade union strikes here last year. I don't think any of the other trade unions supported it - it was wholly unjustified.

 

 

 

As far as I know police here in the US aren't allowed to strike. Probably not many government workers are, my dad is a USPS worker and he and all the other mailmen had a part in their contract about not striking.

This was shown during the police trade union strikes here last year. I don't think any of the other trade unions supported it - it was wholly unjustified.

 

 

 

As far as I know police here in the US aren't allowed to strike. Probably not many government workers are, my dad is a USPS worker and he and all the other mailmen had a part in their contract about not striking.

 

That would be why it's not justified. I mean, they obviously made preparations so the country wasn't in anarchy while they were on strike, and it was only limited to a march round Westminster, but they are vital to the country's security.

 

 

 

That and they were the ones putting down all the strikes in the 1980s, so sympathy for the police wasn't exactly pouring out from the trade unions anyway. Plus their wage has gone up considerably in the past decade under Labour, and they were striking over one below inflation pay rise...

 

 

 

So yeah, it's not the case at all that the trade union threatens action and the government caves in. People are too intelligent for that now.

 

 

 

As for the post office, we kind of have a rule like that. You're not allowed to delay the Queen's mail, otherwise technically it's treason, not that anyone would honestly charge someone with that :P . Maybe we should pull that one out on all the donkey car drivers who pull out in front of post office vans... :-k

This was shown during the police trade union strikes here last year. I don't think any of the other trade unions supported it - it was wholly unjustified.

 

 

 

As far as I know police here in the US aren't allowed to strike. Probably not many government workers are, my dad is a USPS worker and he and all the other mailmen had a part in their contract about not striking.

 

That would be why it's not justified. I mean, they obviously made preparations so the country wasn't in anarchy while they were on strike, and it was only limited to a march round Westminster, but they are vital to the country's security.

 

 

 

That and they were the ones putting down all the strikes in the 1980s, so sympathy for the police wasn't exactly pouring out from the trade unions anyway. Plus their wage has gone up considerably in the past decade under Labour, and they were striking over one below inflation pay rise...

 

 

 

So yeah, it's not the case at all that the trade union threatens action and the government caves in. People are too intelligent for that now.

 

 

 

As for the post office, we kind of have a rule like that. You're not allowed to delay the Queen's mail, otherwise technically it's treason, not that anyone would honestly charge someone with that :P . Maybe we should pull that one out on all the donkey car drivers who pull out in front of post office vans... :-k

 

 

 

You just ran away with that one. :lol: We got from maximum wage to charging slow drivers with treason in 17 posts? Only in OT...

 

 

 

Anyways, yes, the unions milk the companies they work for for every penny they can.

A maximum wage would go against one of the basic principals of capitalism - that something is worth what its buyer will pay for it. That said, many unions have gotten far too powerful, and are literally sucking the life out of the companies they formed under (the UAW for example). Laws need to be passed that break the back of the unions and get them back to their founding purpose.

 

Exactly. This would mean that skills that society deems as hard of skillful are all equal to each other, which isn't the case.