The Role of Government

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

I ask forgiveness...trick question. If gummit sets the minimum' especially at such a high level it is by definition not competitive. Gummit fiat determines the wage, not competition. If a million people would take an entry level, unskilled position for $10/hr bidnesses would still pay the $15 (or eliminate the job altogether).

Get a term besides "competitive".

[William Thornton]

Keith, I merely too issue with the use of the term. If today's job market is competitive in the sense that many jobless grads compete for limited jobs, then that is still competition. There are occupations where the opposite is true...Obama just hasn't got around to killing those markets.

[William Thornton]

Hmmm, no shortage of high-tech workers, study says. The number of immigrants alone with relevant degrees is enough to fill the available jobs. No doubt such an environment depresses wages due to competition. So, are my mod/lib friends in favor of shuttng off immigration to improve the competitive situation?

[William Thornton]

[ET]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

The reason you are not getting this, keith, is that you are infected with your anti-capitalist, CEO pay snit, keynesian True Believer attitudes. I merely called Sandy on his use of "competitive" as a synonym for non-competitive, arbitrary wage levels. Orwellian would be the word for it. As much as you read on economics, it's almost painful to see you stumble so badly on simple things.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Pride is one of the deadly sins, no?

Neither you nor Sandy get this. But have a nice day anyhow.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Keith: France’s wealth tax is progressive 0-1.8%. That reduction in available capital for innovation should not influence “innovation” much at all. More innovation comes from smart people independent of their wealth.

Hate to intrude on your and ET's discussion here but would the above be why France is an example of so much innovation and newly created companies and attendant wealth? I believe ET made some points on that.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Sandy, your mistake is in presuming that "competition" is expressed only among employers for workers with the desired skills. Many labor markets exhibit the opposite, many workers competing for few jobs which depress wages.

...But I know that you and Keith require corporate demons to enable you to get through each day.

[KeithE]

[ET]

[KeithE]

[ET]

[KeithE]

ET, you are exaggerating when you claim I disparaged people earning $110K/year at all. I make well over that myself. But that you claim I believe those like the NYC $110K family are "part of this evil subset of immorally rich Americans benefitting at the expense of the rest”, you most certainly are exaggerating greatly.

My specific suggestion to limit top pay has always been aimed at those who pay themselves more than 100:1 times as much as their lowest level worker. If they pay some min wage ($7.25/hr = $15,000/year), my suggestion is that they should not pay themselves more than $1.5M/year (Note: that is over 10 times the $110K/year). By your income placement calculators (btw thanks for that), this corresponds to Top 0.5% or Top 1% depending on which calculator you use. I confine my disparaging remarks to those that pay themselves that much, recognizing that in these days some are just offered that much as acceptability of large salaries has grown. To those that are offered that much, I would recommend that they contributed liberally and if in a position to do so, raise the level of pay of the lowered paid worker-bees by reducing their own pay (really restructure the entire pay scale).

BTW there is quite a bit of difference between your two calculators. Take the NYC $110K family, they are 83% (top 17%) is the WSJ calculator and barely cracked the “Top 10%” is the Kiplinger calculator.

And I’m not against government enforcing some manner of max wage (like the Ryan-Murray Budget Deal which set the max US reimbursable contractor wage at ; the President’s pay is $400,000/year).

I know, ET and William, you philosophically object to that. I don’t because 1) it has gotten out of hand in the last 30 years and 2) it would make our country a “more perfect union” and “promote the general welfare” and imo help to “establish justice”. Thus compensation control is a legitimate “role of government”. In fact, imo, government must step in when economic practices run amok on a destructive path for a majority of Americans - the “invisible hand” is not a “magic wand”.

[Sandy]

One of the really nice things about the internet, and consumer activism, is the availability of information which helps you find businesses that pay fair, competitive wages, so that if it is possible, you can do business with them to support their policies. I shop at a fully unionized grocery store chain that provides employees with benefits, and amazingly contrary to conservative economic opinion, saves me money and has a lot better customer service than Wal-Mart. I've found an auto insurance company that does the same, and provides comprehensive coverage at a premium rate that's well below the "standard market" in our area. And their customer service is great. It can be done, if business owners aren't greedy. Unfortunately, too many of them are, and that requires government, unions, and consumer action to restore a competitive playing field.

[ET]

That's fine, Sandy. Got no problem with that other than your assertion that because other companies may not operate in the way you like that they are therefore "greedy".

Unions can be just as greedy as any CEO in trying to lock out competition, particularly from those that might work cheaper.

[Hal Eaton]

I've just been trying to read the lengthy posts of Dave and ET on this subject. They seem to disagree, at least in part, as to the "role of Government." The same disagreement is endemic in all of our TV news sources, largely because of either the ignorance or the bi-partisan role of many of the commentators.

I have listened to the critics of the Veterans Affairs fiasco (Faux News used the word "scandal" four times in about three minutes). My problem with the coverage is that nobody, so far, has appeared to have any knowledge of the limits placed on the processes of giving veterans health care. The commentators have wept long and loud about what we owe to all our patriotic veterans for their service to our country. The VA is not now, nor has it ever, offered free health care to the literally millions of veterans in the USA.

One of the major limits on the governments largesse toward veterans is that such health care is indeed classifiable as a charity. It is offered to any veteran who cannot afford to pay for his own health care. In the requirements for a successful application for care, the veteran must show inabilty to cover such costs based on stated amounts he/she is allowed to earn before the appeal for care is approved. (I believe the cut-off for care is pegged at $35,000 annual earnings for a single person, with about $6,000 added for each dependent. I am unsure of the exact amounts, but they can be acquired on the internet.)

My own experience occurred in 1947. I had been released from my enlistment a few months earlier, having been plagued by throat problems during my 20 months of service. Upon my application for a tonsilectomy, I was asked if I could afford the cost. I had been married three months before, was back in school on the GI Bill, and reported my (and my wife's) current income. I entered a VA hospital and the operation was performed. I met only the doctor who performed the surgery. He put a blindfold over my eyes, sat me in a chair, asked me to hold a tray with his instruments on it, and proceded to do his job, ending with a curt, "Cough 'em up."
I drove myself home (40 miles) the next day or so. I had no objections to the procedure or its conclusion. It was free, because of (1) my prior service, and (2) I was unable to pay the cost.

Medicare and Tricare cover nearly all of my health care costs now. Medicare covers most of the cost; I've been a recipient for 22 years. Tricare (or a previous program under another name) covered the total cost for 21 years; and the remainder of Medicare's costs for 22 years, based on my 26 years of Naval service.

I would not attempt to add up the total costs of such care. Part was in payment for military service, part was due to the acts of Congress which are applicable to all 65-and-over folks. Even "illegals"--a rather disgusting term--can utilize emergency rooms, with all their drawbacks, for health care. And the Affordable Care Act, if allowed to proceed, will spread the availability to most, if not all.

About the cost of my care: I've had a quad by-pass, two hospitalizations for placement of stents, 22 years of diabetic supplies, a colonoscopy and later removal of one-third of my colon, three operations to remove kidney stones, a knee replaced (and the other needs it), occasional visits to the emergency room for low blood sugar occurences, care for a transient ischemic attack which left me lost miles out in the country; and the newest complaint: a failing memory (where are my glasses, hearing aids, car keys, the hammer, the screwdriver, and my wife? I lost my truck the other day . . .)

Frankly, I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if my personal kind of health care could be offered to all -- including those who read this folderol.