After reading Shimmeringstar's excellent proposition, I've decided to ween myself from environmental politics for a spell and tackle the issue of a maximum wage. I rated it excellent simply because Shimmeringstar eloquently categorized wealthy Americans as, "sports players, movie stars" and my personal favorite, "oil mongrels."
Think, for a moment, about what this world could be like if there was such thing as a maximum wage. We know all about minimum wages. Most of us have probably worked a minimum wage job at some time in our lives.
We live in a rep-democratic system that distributes wealth unequally. Ain't that the truth. It's probably part of the reason an issue like health care reform is part of the discussion in this country. And that's well and fair. I dig that. An ABC News/Washington Post poll that was conducted last October shows exactly how much dissatisfied we are with the status-quo.
In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.
And so I agree with Shimmer in one sense, except I WILL NOT beat around the bush.
What in the hell makes William McGuire's product as CEO of UnitedHealth Group so inflated? The DissidentVoice reports,
His pay of $124.8 million could cover the average health insurance premiums of nearly 34,000 people….
While workers are having a tougher time making ends meet, CEOs are getting perks worth more than worker paychecks. CEO freeloaders expect perks such as lifetime use of company jets, chauffeured cars, company apartments, club memberships, sports tickets, financial planning, personal assistants and more.
In CEO World, the more money you make, the less you should have to pay for.
My idealistic democratic ideal has me on a short leash today. I really believe we should advocate a more progressive, 1960s-style, progressive income tax.
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/02/14/united-health-ceo-earned-1248...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Sklar0512.htm
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Your proposition is completely backwards in that you see the problem as the market and the solution as the government, when in fact, it's the government that's the problem and the market is neither here nor there.
Businesses have monopoly power (and thus garner huge profits) because the government grants them such things like intellectual property rights, contracts, business restrictions which make it more expensive to enter an industry. (How many new car companies do you see popping up in our country?)
Most of the so-called progressive legislation (minimum wage, anti-trust, price ceilings, etc.) only furthers the economic divide by imposing economic restrictions which strangle supply and decrease economic efficiency which comes out of the paycheck of the working class.
Unfortunately, the government will do nothing to help (although it puts up a pretty good ruse portraying legislation that detriments the working class as beneficial). Reason being, the various representatives and governors and presidential candidates all have those very monopolistic/ogilopolistic companies backing them. Can't bite the hand that feeds.
Want to join the revolution?
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
I see where you're coming from, and I guess I have a little more faith in democracy. A vote to me provides a little more conscience for industries. And yes, more than a consumer would; more than profit would. 'In our search for wealth and prosperity, we've created a market that will destroy us.' I mean sure, some of the following were not impacted by governments until people were knowledgeable and educated enough to demand a changing culture and responsive government. But when people say market solutions, I think of a few questions.
Where were private industries during slavery?
Where were the market solutions when children were injured during factory work?
What was the market solution for peace during WWII? [I'll give you a hint: the solution didn't include a corporation like CocaCola creating a new drink (Fanta Orange) for the Nazis.]
What was the market solution to Apartheid?
What was the market solution to co-opt the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
What was the market solution to the Vietnam War? It didn't include the making of more destructive bombs, or later smart bombs. It didn't include the founding of industries that made profit on killing human beings.
What was the market solution to externalities? They don't quite factor them into the consumer price, right?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
The market isn't supposed to solve social injustices, that's for people to take care of. The reason that people are so afraid of free market capitalism (and even farther, free market anarchism) is because representative democracy gives them the opportunity to and encourages the mindset of not caring for people.
The market seizes upon opportunities which are profitable. That's how it works. It's government which created those horrific opportunities (slavery, war, apartheid, the necessity to put children to work by means of creating market intrusions which benefit big business).
As for externalities, there are positive externalities, too. But I assume you meant negative externalities (like pollution). Again, I don't see that as a market problem, but a social one. The market does not affect social change, but social change can affect the market. If people don't like what a business is doing, they (should) make noise. As of late, they have been, and certain companies have been listening (like GE...to an extent). Remember, the market is about supply and demand. The demand is made up of people.
I don't know how much experience you have with economics, but often, we break down the sections below the demand curve. Under it, there is consumer surplus, producer surplus, and cost. But most economists leave out that giant triangle to the right of the equillibrium point. They say that it's unimportant. I disagree and say that it's the most important, because that's where the change in the market comes from.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Yeah you're right. Keynesian theory is the extent of my economics knowledge. How does the saying go-- you know a lot about everything, but not a whole lot about anything.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?