Originally posted by Lokrian
I have yet to meet anyone so good that I honestly thought they were doing a job even so much as 10 times more valuable than an average, resposible worker
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you, or I, or anyone else thinks. The market sets prices, not you and not me.

What you are asking for is a pure command economy where prices and wages are set according to external decisions (e.g. a "living" wage or some other bogus human construct).

Command economies DO NOT WORK. History has proven this repeatedly.


Originally posted by Lokrian
The exact line? Heck I don't know.
You're right. You don't know. That is why in a capitalist society, market forces determine prices (including the price of labor). The role of government is to preserve the ability of the market to effectively and efficiently set prices. That includes preventing monopolies (side note: When the government does idiotic things like letting Exxon and Mobil merge, it is failing in this duty).

Even you have to admit you have no idea where to draw the line. The fact is, no single person or group of people would ever be able to do that. That is why it must be left to market forces to determine the value of someone's work, product, service, etc.

When you fix prices, the result is always shortages. That is why in the USSR, there were hour long lines to get into grocery stores with virtually empty shelves. That is why you could hardly buy toilet paper there.

The reality is that most people work exactly as hard and exactly as much as they have to in order to get the things they want. This is DEFINITELY true on a macroeconomic scale.

If you raise wages higher than they would be according to neutral, unbiased market forces, people don't want to work as much. They can make all the money they want by working less hours. Result? Labor shortage.

On a macro scale, someone getting paid 10 times as much as someone else is worth EXACTLY 10 times as much to the economy. If you do not believe this, then you do not believe in market economics, and you are espousing socialism or communism. There are individual exceptions of course, but on a macro scale, this is absolutely true. If you are ready to admit you are a socialist or communist, that is fine. That changes the discussion significantly, but at least then we know where you stand.

I rarely engage in market economy vs. command economy discussions because they are relatively pointless, nobody changes their opinion, and frankly, history has already resolved this question.


Originally posted by Lokrian
Another thing you neglect to take into acount is that realistically, large numbers always outgun small ones, no matter how clever they may be, so the mass of humanity that the top percentage attempts to leave behind will simply not let them get away with demanding too many resources. Ultimately, everything comes from the land and work, and the land belongs to the strong and work is done by the masses. You just can't dismiss that reality the way it seems to me that you do.
I am trying very hard to sort through this paragraph, but with all due respect, it is very convoluted. Either you are rushing or you are just getting confused.

If you are saying we are on the verge of some kind of peasant uprising, all I can really do is laugh. No lower or middle class has ever had it as good as they do in the United States. The amazing income mobility of the United States ensures that anyone who wants to get ahead CAN get ahead. There is no oppressed lower class and there is nobody saying "let them eat cake."

Anyone who truly wants to can manage to save $166 a month over 41 years. For every temporary hardship or setback you mention, the person could easily make up for it during times of good fortune or extra work. All you offered in response are weak excuses. Any able-bodied (or minded) person who wants to get ahead in the USA can. It is up to them.

There are countries you can live in where the government coddles its populace and inefficiently seeks to redistribute resources by artificial means. Anyone interested in that kind of system is free to move there. It is not a coincidence that these countries don't do as well as ours economically. But don't screw up one of the only countries where resources are distributed by merit and by unbiased, neutral market forces.


Originally posted by Lokrian
No, it's just that I know you can't get taxes out of people who don't have it to give. They have no money because their wages are too low.
Their wages are not too low. In a free market economy (especially one with an active media) their wages are EXACTLY what their work is worth. If their work was worth more, they would get paid more. If they want higher wages their options include: work harder, learn new skills, start their own business, stay with the same company long enough to move up, etc. Externally demanding higher wages is not an option, and even if they got their wish it would change nothing.

People commonly think they deserve higher pay. Successful people do what it takes to earn it.

Here's a hint: If you externally raise wages 20%, prices will also go up 20% eventually, and the net effect is zero. Understand? The laws of economics make everything you are arguing for utterly impossible.

As an added bonus, in the short run, a lot of businesses will just pack up and leave so they do not have to wait for prices to catch up.

Great plan.

This is one of the many reasons command economies do not work.