IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th June 2018, 03:27 AM   #81
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
This is one of those topics that I go back and forth on. In the extreme, I wonder what would happen if the social safety net was dropped. Fully realizing the pain that would be caused short term, I wonder what level of worker unionization and push back would come to occur and how that would affect incomes across the board. Someone working full time and getting by with government assistance might continue working towards the hope of earning a livable wage. Someone working full time and not able to afford a place to live/eat etc? Much different situation. I can't imagine how quickly the work force of large companies would unionize and demand increases beyond what they otherwise would attempt. Necessity always seems to bring about faster change.

Then again, it would not be as fun to watch what level of government involvement would occur to protect such businesses from their workers. It does raise the question of who most benefits from the current safety net we have, the poor or the upper class.
We can use history to see what happens with no "safety net" in our own countries and we can see what happens in countries that don't have one today.

It is exactly what you'd expect, poor people starve, live on garbage dumps, die from easily preventable and treatable diseases, die at comparatively young ages and so on.

When societies organise we create safety nets.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 03:35 AM   #82
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What that tells me is that there is more going on than simply not having a lot of resources. Why do some people with not a lot of resources escape but others don’t? Figuring out what makes the difference will help us implement the strategies that even the playing field. As you point out, even in Scandinavian “utopias” something other than money is holding people back. What is that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's called luck.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 03:38 AM   #83
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I agree personally, but I sense I am in the minority here. And I am not talking about a complete leveling of wealth. For one thing, it would require constant tinkering. If we redistributed all of LeBron James's wealth today, by next year he'd still be a lot wealthier than average.

But I certainly think you would get a majority vote for the premise that wealth should be more equal than it is, and that achieving greater wealth equality would be a proper goal for society.
One of the simplest way to do this would be to remove inheritance from generation to generation. A solution I strongly favour but consider to be pretty much unobtainable.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 03:42 AM   #84
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
One of the simplest way to do this would be to remove inheritance from generation to generation.
What about gifts? Or trust funds etc.?
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 03:53 AM   #85
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ok. So how do we fix this issue? [ . . . ] The bandwidth issue doesn't seem to be a problem for some people. What makes those people different and how can we use that knowledge to help other people in the same circumstances?
The approach in the book "Scarcity" (which is of course just one idea) is to compensate for the hypothesised observation that poverty "taxes bandwidth".

Which is to say, design things so that it is "easier to get back on the wagon" I suppose, so that failure becomes less path-dependent or self-reinforcing. The logic here is that bad-decisions-in-poverty are not (or at least not mainly) the result of character flaw, or even lack of education about "good choices". But it is partly caused by poverty itself taxing the ability to escape it. Mandatory classes in financial literacy (which someone else mentioned) probably miss the point.
Quote:
This leads to the final section, about remedies, or designing for scarcity as the authors call it. Changing the design of levers on a flight deck so that wheels-up is not next to the same control for the wing flaps (and does not feel the same!), was a breakthrough in cutting after-landing crashes of US military planes in WW2. With this cool intro, the reader is invited to consider similar design improvements in dealing with poverty—that is—improvements in the effectiveness of handling human error. Examples are such as increased ease of getting back on track with training/study programs provided via welfare, so that missing one module does not launch onto a trajectory that is progressively harder to recover from. Or more flexible pay dates provided by employers that would obviate much of a need for pay-day lending. Or smaller but more frequently renewable caps on various entitlement programs. Not many of the ideas stuck this reviewer as brilliant, but the concept seemed solid to her—that there is an under-supplied need to enable the poor to be insured against small shocks (lower amplitude, higher frequency), so that bandwidth can be increased (slack can be created) when it matters. Because the inevitability of many small shocks is not going to be a surprise—rather, it is highly predictable, and because the deadweight loss of persistent bandwidth tax is—if one buys the thesis—now known about in advance. Some of this is reminiscent of the wish for Kenneth Arrow’s complete set of hedging markets. Or more of them than there are, anyway.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=278716
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:02 AM   #86
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
What about gifts? Or trust funds etc.?
Many of such devices are used to avoid taxation so on the whole not really for them no matter how "letter of the law" they are. As a general principle - full taxation as if it was earned income.

Given our pseudo-capitalist system I can't see much changing until intergenerational inheritance is tackled.

I know I am rather in the minority in that I see no reason why I am or should be entitled to my parents etc. wealth when they die so I really think we won't see any significant change in increased true "social mobility" in countries like the UK and USA.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:20 AM   #87
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Many of such devices are used to avoid taxation so on the whole not really for them no matter how "letter of the law" they are. As a general principle - full taxation as if it was earned income.
I think your previous post implied a 100% tax rate on inheritance . . . "full" in this case means what? Marginal income tax rate?

(ETA income from trusts is taxed, but the wealth is not and technically the wealth may never wholly pass to the beneficiary. Anyway don't worry about it; it is ridiculously easy to throw up quirks and inconsistencies and unintended consequences from tax design ad eternam and that is all I am indulging in!)

Quote:
I know I am rather in the minority in that I see no reason why I am or should be entitled to my parents etc. wealth when they die so I really think we won't see any significant change in increased true "social mobility" in countries like the UK and USA.
Indeed inheritance tax is I think one of the least popular but (don't quote me) according to an informed consensus also one of the most efficient (least inefficient) economically. I agree with you that it is highly desirable socially, although 100% tax rates take on some kind of social evil all their own so I don't think I would go that far.

Some objections to inheritance tax are about backwards: one hears that "this is a bad tax because the rich have more resources to avoid it", well true but if it was abolished then surely the rich would benefit most from the abolition too (including saving the resource expended on avoidance!)

Last edited by Francesca R; 19th June 2018 at 04:23 AM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:37 AM   #88
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I know I am rather in the minority in that I see no reason why I am or should be entitled to my parents etc. wealth when they die so I really think we won't see any significant change in increased true "social mobility" in countries like the UK and USA.
I'm quite sympathetic to this view, but I don't think the issue is whether or not the beneficiary is entitled to the inheritance, but whether or not the prior owner is entitled to do what they want with their wealth, including passing it on to their children.

It's hard for me to see an argument for why someone shouldn't be able to just give their wealth to someone of their choice, except in so much as our society might run more efficiently if they can't.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:43 AM   #89
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm quite sympathetic to this view, but I don't think the issue is whether or not the beneficiary is entitled to the inheritance, but whether or not the prior owner is entitled to do what they want with their wealth, including passing it on to their children.

It's hard for me to see an argument for why someone shouldn't be able to just give their wealth to someone of their choice, except in so much as our society might run more efficiently if they can't.
I am all for that - as long as course the "gift" is taxable at the appropriate income tax rate. My comments were about inheritance and dead people can't gift or make any other decision! If you want your kids to have your wealth you need to transfer it when you are alive and they need to pay tax on that transfer no matter what means is used to transfer it.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:45 AM   #90
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
ETA @ Robborama:

If you accept that someone no longer exists in any way after their death then that concern moves to unsafe philosophical ground (IE their wishes also cease to exist insofar as they affect the deceased)
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:49 AM   #91
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
A business that cannot afford to pay a living wage isn't viable.
Does that apply to part time workers as well?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:55 AM   #92
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
Since living wage is not law the statement isn't legally correct anyway.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 04:58 AM   #93
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
In reply to both Darat and Francesca as I think you both made the same point:
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
ETA @ Robborama:

If you accept that someone no longer exists in any way after their death then that concern moves to unsafe philosophical ground (IE their wishes also cease to exist insofar as they affect the deceased)
A person who writes a will is still alive when they are writing it. And people care about things (and are willing to spend money on things) that won't happen until after their death. For instance people take out life insurance policies and spend money paying their premiums based on potential outcomes that won't occur until after their death.

I don't really see strong philosophical grounds for preventing people from making those sorts of decisions.

As I said you may have a good practical argument (I actually think you do) for why we should structure our society to disallow* some subset of them, but I don't think we can make that argument just on principle.

*Or, at least, tax at a higher rate.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 05:15 AM   #94
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
1. Would you risk your life savings to open a business so you can hire high school kids at a wage where they can rent their own homes and save money?

2. I can't answer that as I don't know what their profit loss statement looks like. But FYI, I live In Hawaii where a 10,000 square foot property can cost more than $15,000 (USD) a month or more, not including the cost of utilities and the fact that some property owners charge rent plus a percentage of profits if you have a good month of sales.

You don't believe that the business owner who risks their life savngs to open a business is entitled to some benefits other than paying living wages to people who may not make their business successful?
No, I would risk my life savings to open a business in order to make money. In the profit/loss calculations I would calculate that I pay my employees a fair wage as I consider it reprehensible to exploit someones desperate situation by paying them a sub-par wage and I would want to attract motivated people who will work better and thus make my business more successful if they are rewarded fairly.

And I also believe that in a fully capitalistic system such abuse is rewarded and that therefore the government should step in to prevent such excesses by putting up a minimum wage that enables one to live off of wages and at the same time taxes profit from companies that is not used to re-invest in the company or labor force to allow for temporary unemployment benefits so people can look for a new job without immediately losing their homes.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 05:21 AM   #95
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I don't really see strong philosophical grounds for preventing people from making those sorts of decisions.
I am pretty sure that various new forward transactions and contracts would quickly replace wills and probate if the latter were abolished anyway.

Better to simply have an inheritance tax. Conceptually better if it taxes beneficiaries not estates though. Such as, If I receive £200k from each of five wealthy deceased relatives I ought to suffer greater taxation than if I received $500k from one, but I would probably suffer less.

(In the realm of nice problems to have, grief aside . . . )
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 05:47 AM   #96
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I consider it reprehensible to exploit someones desperate situation by paying them a sub-par wage
But not reprehensible to automate the job presumably?
Quote:
And I also believe that [ . . . ] the government should step in to [ . . . ] taxes profit from companies that is not used to re-invest in the company or labor force
Well it does. EBT deducts employee compensation and capex from sales but not retained earnings or dividends.

Last edited by Francesca R; 19th June 2018 at 05:49 AM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:38 AM   #97
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
I am pretty sure that various new forward transactions and contracts would quickly replace wills and probate if the latter were abolished anyway.

Better to simply have an inheritance tax. Conceptually better if it taxes beneficiaries not estates though. Such as, If I receive £200k from each of five wealthy deceased relatives I ought to suffer greater taxation than if I received $500k from one, but I would probably suffer less.
That all sounds reasonable.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:43 AM   #98
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Does that apply to part time workers as well?
Pro rata, yes.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:56 AM   #99
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Pro rata, yes.
I guess that means that you wouldn't have a problem with hiring someone part time and not paying them enough to live if they are working few hours if the hourly rate is high enough that they would be making a living wage if working full time at that rate. And of course conversely that you would have a problem if the rate/hour was lower than that.

Sounds reasonable. I'm actually not entirely sure what I think on this subject at the moment.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:22 AM   #100
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm actually not entirely sure what I think on this subject at the moment.
In my case--that minimum wage should be set up to a level where it just starts to measurably influence unemployment. Not that this can be measured easily. On the evidence of those who have tried though this would indicate to me that minimum wage probably isn't "too high" anywhere.

(I seem to remember this view being courtesy of Paul Krugman but can't verify that)
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:31 AM   #101
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I guess that means that you wouldn't have a problem with hiring someone part time and not paying them enough to live if they are working few hours if the hourly rate is high enough that they would be making a living wage if working full time at that rate. And of course conversely that you would have a problem if the rate/hour was lower than that.

Sounds reasonable. I'm actually not entirely sure what I think on this subject at the moment.

Sorry, that was a very quick answer.

Yes, that's about it. It should be at an hourly rate sufficient, if worked full time, to live.

I don't care if the person doing the job is a student, an OAP or even a child, a job that is essential to the running of the business should be paid enough to be someone's full time job and sustain them. If the job isn't essential to the business then one has to ask searching questions regarding the budding businessman's business acumen.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 19th June 2018 at 07:33 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 08:44 AM   #102
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
But not reprehensible to automate the job presumably?
No, but the fact that we automate more and more jobs DOES mean that eventually there will be less jobs available, thus I do feel that as a society we should institute a social security network to ensure we do not end up with a large amount of unemployed and unemployable underclass citizens.

Now I've heard the argument that for each job lost to automation a job opens up in IT, but not everyone capable of performing well at an automated job is able to perform well in IT or services.

I gladly pay my taxes to ensure that others are able to live as well.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:40 AM   #103
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Now I've heard the argument that for each job lost to automation a job opens up in IT

If this is the case, then why bother automating?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:44 AM   #104
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
It probably does not mean a job is needed in IT to operate the automatic thing.

"Why bother" is: now you can have both the automated job and the IT job done without needing a larger workforce.

(The job created is probably more likely to be in something like healthcare though)
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:52 AM   #105
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
A business that cannot afford to pay a living wage isn't viable.
It sounds like you've never run a business yourself.

So you're okay if I pay a "living wage" (i.e. $16 an hour) but hire 3 people to work 16 hours a week instead of a full time worker, or are you proposing a business owner pay each of these 3 workers $48 an hour because 16 hours a week doesn't generate enough salary?
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:58 AM   #106
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
One of the simplest way to do this would be to remove inheritance from generation to generation. A solution I strongly favour but consider to be pretty much unobtainable.
Of course then you would be relying on government to be responsible with that windfall, which I believe is a problem. The extra funds would become political pay backs in States where fiscal responsibility seems non existent.

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/20...-in-the-world/

Quote:
Considering how Honolulu’s rail project is shaping up right now, the average Oahu resident will have to pay almost $10,500 for its construction costs, which will make it the most expensive rail project in the world, per capita.

That’s based on the current official estimate of about $10 billion, though some experts have said the project could cost more than $13 billion, which would cost the average Oahu resident about $13,700.

“There is no question that the Honolulu rail project is the most expensive per capita of any publicly funded rail project in the modern age,” said Randal O’Toole, a transportation expert and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a policy think tank based in Washington, D.C.

Even if the U.S. Federal Transit Administration kicks in the $1.5 billion it promised to help defray Honolulu’s costs — which at the moment is not a sure thing — the average Oahu resident would still be on the hook for $8,917.

On a per capita basis, Washington, D.C., has the second most expensive transportation project in the nation, the Metro, costing almost $3,000 per person, for a total of about $18 billion. The D.C. total cost is greater than Honolulu’s, but its per capita cost is considerably less because of its larger population (over 6 million people in D.C. versus 953,000 people on Oahu).
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 10:01 AM   #107
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
It sounds like you've never run a business yourself.
Attack the argument, not the arguer. The above is a pointless statement, stoppit


Quote:
So you're okay if I pay a "living wage" (i.e. $16 an hour) but hire 3 people to work 16 hours a week instead of a full time worker, or are you proposing a business owner pay each of these 3 workers $48 an hour because 16 hours a week doesn't generate enough salary?
Read the bit above about pro rata and all will become clear to you.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 10:28 AM   #108
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Attack the argument, not the arguer. The above is a pointless statement, stoppit
No attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are attempting to redefine the purpose of having a business. The primary purpose of a business is not to pay a living wage to its employees. The business should care for their employees as a social responsibility, but the business is likely to do what they legally are required to provide. I.e. pay a certain wage and provide certain fringe benefits. It is good that some companies pay more and provide better wages and benefits. But some businesses have smaller margins and may not be able to. Does that mean they need to shut their doors because they can only reasonable afford to pay $12 an hour instead of a living wage?

Quote:
What Is a Business?
The Goals of a Business
The primary purpose of a business is to maximize profits for its owners or stakeholders while maintaining corporate social responsibility.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...is-a-business/
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 10:35 AM   #109
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
No attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are attempting to redefine the purpose of having a business. The primary purpose of a business is not to pay a living wage to its employees.
I didn't say it was the primary purpose, where did you get that from?

A business has obligations, pay its bills, meet local and national regulatory standards and to pay a reasonable wage to its staff. If it can't do all of these, it is literally not a business, it's a loss making enterprise running for the ego of the owner.


Quote:
The business should care for their employees as a social responsibility, but the business is likely to do what they legally are required to provide. I.e. pay a certain wage and provide certain fringe benefits.
And my argument is that the employees, gathering together to act in concert through the government, should mandate a minimum wage standard so that the taxpayer does not have to subsidise businesses by ensuring the business have staff who have enough food and can afford shelter. Without food and shelter, an employee cannot work. I do not think it is fair for the taxpayer to subsidise business in this way.


Quote:
It is good that some companies pay more and provide better wages and benefits. But some businesses have smaller margins and may not be able to.
If your margins do not allow you to pay your employees enough for food, shelter, healtcare and retirement savings, then you are running your business, and making a profit, at the expense of the taxpayer. how on earth is that fair?

Quote:
Does that mean they need to shut their doors because they can only reasonable afford to pay $12 an hour instead of a living wage?
Yes! Without a doubt. Their employees are forced to make up the shortfall by using the taxes gathered from your and my wages. You and I are, at this point, literally paying directly to the business owner so that they make a profit. How you can view this as fair is beyond me.




Quote:
Corporate social responsibility does not, in my opinion, include sponging off the taxpayer.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 19th June 2018 at 10:38 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 10:47 AM   #110
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If your margins do not allow you to pay your employees enough for food, shelter, healtcare and retirement savings, then you are running your business, and making a profit, at the expense of the taxpayer. how on earth is that fair?

Yes! Without a doubt. Their employees are forced to make up the shortfall by using the taxes gathered from your and my wages. You and I are, at this point, literally paying directly to the business owner so that they make a profit. How you can view this as fair is beyond me.
Here is where I believe the impasse occurs. If I run a small business and let's use a small shop as an example where I as the owner and operator, am the primary employee. But I hire 2 part timers to work weekends to allow for more customer access and give myself respite. I hire two high schoolers, both of whom have adequate food and, and a home to live in. The employees are happy to have a job so they can earn cash to go to the movies, to the mall and whatever else high schoolers do.

Let's say I can still make ends meet without opening my shop on weekends, thereby negating the need for any employees.

How is this harmful to society and how are tax payers subsiding my enterprise?
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:08 AM   #111
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Does that apply to part time workers as well?
If you mean "should someone who works less than full time hours necessarily make a living wage?" , then I'd answer "No" although I don't think it's a bad aspiration.

If you mean "should someone who works a full working week but does so for more than one employer make a living wage?" then certainly. If fairness alone isn't a good enough reason then because otherwise living wage legislation would be trivially easy to evade.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:10 AM   #112
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
Here is where I believe the impasse occurs. If I run a small business and let's use a small shop as an example where I as the owner and operator, am the primary employee. But I hire 2 part timers to work weekends to allow for more customer access and give myself respite. I hire two high schoolers, both of whom have adequate food and, and a home to live in. The employees are happy to have a job so they can earn cash to go to the movies, to the mall and whatever else high schoolers do.
To each according to their need, that sort of thing?


Quote:
Let's say I can still make ends meet without opening my shop on weekends, thereby negating the need for any employees.
Well done, you've just engineered yourself weekends off. Of course, you'll be making less profit. If you'd make more profit employing people at a living wage and opening your shop on a weekend then I'd recommend doing so.


Quote:
How is this harmful to society and how are tax payers subsiding my enterprise?
It's not, I don't think. However, if your employees cannot make rent, eat, save for retirement and cover their healthcare, then they are literally going to die of starvation, exposure, or curable disease and you're going to have to go and find some more. That's unless you expect John Q. Taxpayer to make up the difference and, quite frankly, why the bloody hell should he?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:24 AM   #113
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
I hire two high schoolers, both of whom have adequate food and, and a home to live in.
So your policy is only to employ people who don't need a job?

Eta: Would you have some kind of means test to make sure they aren't emancipated from their parents or trying to contribute to the income of a family in financial trouble?
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 19th June 2018 at 11:26 AM.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:26 AM   #114
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
The issue with the living wage is that it's a moving target. For some states, $15 an hour might allow someone a comfortable living but you would probably still be struggling if you lived in New York, California or Hawaii and some other states.

My state (Hawaii) had legislation proposing a $15 minimum wage in 2020, but it did not pass. The current minimum wage is $10.10 per hour.

Ironically, the State of Hawaii (government) is the largest employer and during the vetting of the bill, discovered that 1600 government workers earn less than $15 an hour and while it wasn't stated, I believe that played a role in the bill getting canned.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3...s-minimum-wage
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:35 AM   #115
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
You can’t even define a living wage uniformly across the board. A high school student in rural Texas has a very different “living wage” than a single mom trying to make ends meet in NYC. $15/hour isn’t even going to come close to what that NYC mom needs to live in that city but would be entirely too high for that rural student.

It’s an illusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:54 AM   #116
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
The issue with the living wage is that it's a moving target. For some states, $15 an hour might allow someone a comfortable living but you would probably still be struggling if you lived in New York, California or Hawaii and some other states.

My state (Hawaii) had legislation proposing a $15 minimum wage in 2020, but it did not pass. The current minimum wage is $10.10 per hour.

Ironically, the State of Hawaii (government) is the largest employer and during the vetting of the bill, discovered that 1600 government workers earn less than $15 an hour and while it wasn't stated, I believe that played a role in the bill getting canned.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3...s-minimum-wage
$15 an hour is approx $2400 a month, gross. I guess if you were alone and lived like a monk, you wouldn't struggle too much. But it would be impossible to raise a family on that salary, anywhere in the country, without govt. assistance.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 12:01 PM   #117
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
So your policy is only to employ people who don't need a job?
It seems bizarrely communistic to assign value to a job based on the status of the employee.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 12:05 PM   #118
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
$15 an hour is approx $2400 a month, gross. I guess if you were alone and lived like a monk, you wouldn't struggle too much. But it would be impossible to raise a family on that salary, anywhere in the country, without govt. assistance.
That was my salary when my wife and I were first married, with a child: $36k/year gross. We had an apartment (2-bedroom), could afford internet and cable, owned a car, and while we didn't live lavishly we weren't bad off (and definitely were not living like monks). And we did without government assistance. That is a liveable wage in some areas. Admittedly, I do live in one of the lower cost-of-living areas...it would have definitely been a struggle in someplace like New York or L.A.

I agree there are issues here that need to be addressed, but incorrect facts and needless hyperbole don't do anything to advance the discussion.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 12:07 PM   #119
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
That was my salary when my wife and I were first married, with a child: $36k/year gross. We had an apartment (2-bedroom), could afford internet and cable, owned a car, and while we didn't live lavishly we weren't bad off (and definitely were not living like monks). And we did without government assistance. That is a liveable wage in some areas. Admittedly, I do live in one of the lower cost-of-living areas...it would have definitely been a struggle in someplace like New York or L.A.
How long ago was this? Long enough for inflation to be a factor?


Quote:
I agree there are issues here that need to be addressed, but incorrect facts and needless hyperbole don't do anything to advance the discussion.
As has been pointed out, it's a difficult moving target.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 12:21 PM   #120
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
That was my salary when my wife and I were first married, with a child: $36k/year gross. We had an apartment (2-bedroom), could afford internet and cable, owned a car, and while we didn't live lavishly we weren't bad off (and definitely were not living like monks). And we did without government assistance. That is a liveable wage in some areas. Admittedly, I do live in one of the lower cost-of-living areas...it would have definitely been a struggle in someplace like New York or L.A.

I agree there are issues here that need to be addressed, but incorrect facts and needless hyperbole don't do anything to advance the discussion.
$15 an hour isn't $36k a year. And while you were living on that, were you able to save for your kid's college? Retirement? Put money aside for emergencies? Save for a house? But maybe we define "liveable wage" differently. To me, a liveable wage means not having to live paycheck-to-paycheck in a ****** apartment with a broken down old car praying an emergency doesn't happen.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.