Ethics of Real Estate Investment, NIMYism and the Housing Crisis

SV reX said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You didn't answer my question. 
 

Is it ok for the employees of Company B to be paid significantly less for doing the exact same work?

I would say it is, because the possibility of companies failing can't be eliminated. It's not very fair because a company can fail through no fault of the workers, but it's also not very avoidable and not at all uncommon. In a system where there's no "gap" I expect you'd see workers getting paid more for doing the exact same job at larger companies too, regardless of whether that's 100% salary, 100% profit share, or some mix of the two. That already happens today to a slight extent. People also get paid significantly less for doing the exact same work at the same company due to their income history or worse right now due to pay being kept private.

On a side note, a democratically-controlled workplace would at least improve the odds that the company would've failed due to a mistake the workers made collectively rather than something one or a few people did wrong.

GameboyRMH said:

SV reX said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You didn't answer my question. 
 

Is it ok for the employees of Company B to be paid significantly less for doing the exact same work?

 People also get paid significantly less for doing the exact same work at the same company due to their income history or worse right now due to pay being kept private.

On a side note, a democratically-controlled workplace would at least improve the odds that the company would've failed due to a mistake the workers made collectively rather than something one or a few people did wrong.

If you make less because of your income history or pay being private it is no ones fault but your own. It essentially says you are willing to take less than the theoretical worth of the job or you ar a bad negotiator. At multiple companies Ive come in at higher than the "pay range" because I interviewed well and make a compelling case for what I could bring to the company. Everything is negotiable. If I would have got in with a salary I was happy with and the guy sitting next to me made more, I wouldnt have cared. I agreed to my salary because I was happy with it, and if he made more he was better than me at something, it might have been the job, the interview, or maybe just the negotiation. Plus if you find out he makes more its an opportunity to outperform him and renegotiate. Also wages arent secret they are protected speech. A lot of this stuff stinks of jealousy. Its not that I have enough to be happy, its that he has more.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Right. Like everybody voting themselves salaries that are too high and unsustainable. 

A true democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what they'd like to have for dinner. 
 

That's why we don't live in a true democracy. 

SV reX said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Right. Like everybody voting themselves salaries that are too high and unsustainable. 

Theoretically it could happen, practically I don't think workers would watch their company slowly die as payroll takes a bigger and bigger toll on the budget. I think the closest thing that might happen is that if a workforce is mostly around the same age they might collectively decide to bleed a company to death to their benefit as they approach retirement.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Example.  Jaguar.  The Union had a choice  when John  Egan took over.  They voted to accept the pay scale offered  rather than close the company. 
 That led to their  independence from  BLMC  which led to their survival when BLMC collapsed.  
  One thing you failed to understand.  If a company goes bankrupt so does the companies retirement.  

SV reX said:

A true democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what they'd like to have for dinner. 
 

That's why we don't live in a true democracy. 

Most democracies in the world are true democracies (where minority rule isn't possible) and they're doing fine. Any form of government can be categorized as either majority rule or minority rule, and a democracy is always majority rule. If a democracy isn't a true democracy, then it may operate as an oligarchy that just takes the people's will under advisement.

A democracy can only be as good as the average voter's education. The only thing that should ultimately stand in the way of 51% of the population voting to enact a genocide against the other 49% is the voters being educated enough that they'd never want to do that.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

No. They are representative democracies. Mostly parliamentary style if I remember correctly. It's not majority rule. It's representative rule with a healthy dose of back stabbing and posturing. If that is what you desire in your work experience, then go for it.

Education does not equal morality. That's one of the great fallacies. 

 

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

Education does not equal morality. That's one of the great fallacies.

They're definitely not equivalent, but a good well-rounded education should leave a person with decent morals...

In reply to GameboyRMH :

not at all. Most of the worst people in history that enacted the worst atrocities on humankind where highly educated for their time.

Im pretty sure there are actually only like 1 or 2 current examples of direct democracies in the world. Almost everything is a representative democracy.

I wouldn't say a representative democracy is a minority rule situation, if the representatives are elected by and enacting the will of the majority of voters.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I find it interesting that you keep referring to morals.

Beyond the subjectivity, what is considered moral varies considerably as a function of culture and time.

Even documented laws have so much subjectivity that often twelve citizens, two attorneys, and a judge are required to even approximate some level of objectivity.

In my mind, advocating for something on the grounds that it's the moral thing to do, is just a way to give yourself a blank check to do whatever you want. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

and I wouldnt say a representative republic is minority rule.

In reply to RX Reven' :

I dont think saying something is the moral thing to do, is always a bad thing. 

One of the few places where a direct democracy seems to work pretty well is in the strict confines of a jury panel.

Opti said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

and I wouldnt say a representative republic is minority rule.

A representative republic is just a form of representative democracy, so I'd say the same rules apply. Not necessarily a minority rule situation, but it could be structured to allow it.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Most of these theories aren't plausible, because we can see where the money's coming from (middle & lower class incomes) and where it's going (top incomes & shareholders):

https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

It's not taxes and regulation etc. not only because we can see the money went elsewhere, but we can also see there hasn't been a matching increase in tax revenues.

If it were global competition we should see a general reduction in the overall profitability trend which isn't there. The money wouldn't be going into top incomes, or at least shouldn't...the solution to increased global competition isn't to jack up worker pay inequality.

As for decreased union participation/influence, this one is worth looking into, it could be possible that the gapless ratio was an unsustainable anomaly for some reason...but in terms of timing it doesn't match up as well as the introduction of computers into business.
 

Check your source. It isn't impartial. They started with a conclusion and tried to support it with statistics rather than the other way around. I'll be generous and just say that there are more than one way to interpret the statistics that they share. 

One big problem with us Vs. them over long time scales. The us and the them aren't the same people or businesses over different points in time. Sometimes us becomes them. Go look up some large companies from the mid 70's. Now look them up today. According to your theory, they used to share more of their profits with their workers, but got greedy and have increasingly kept the profits for upper management or shareholders. If so, then where are many of the top companies? Many are gone, or have a much smaller market share than they did back them.  Look at large companies today- many of which didn't exist back in the 70's. And many of which require a higher percentage of skilled vs. unskilled workers. Many of the new companies operate in higher margin- and also higher risk- markets, like tech. So if they succeed, they will make more profit vs. a traditional market like manufacturing. To summarize- you are comparing the businesses of yesterday to the businesses of to today as if they were to  comparable entities, and they simply are not. 
 

The same holds true for the people. You are assuming they are comparable. What if they aren't? You argue that productivity is up but wages haven't kept pace. What evidence do you have that the workers are the key to the productivity increase? To the  contrary, I believe you have credited computers and automation to much of the increase. If so, then why should worker's wages go up? 

Lastly- income inequality should be a good thing. What would be the point of working harder or developing skills if the result was equal income? A large gap in income doesn't necessarily mean a lower floor, it also means a higher ceiling. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

It's easy to target the top 1 percent or whatever percent because it's not really a group of people, it's a measure of success. Even if half of them fail in a year, they just get replaced, so you still have good statistics for your ingenuine argument and boogeyman.

If someone talks to me about poverty, I'm in let's talk about it. If someone talks to me about income inequality, I'm out, I already know what they are going to say "some group of people have too much and I want some" about the only thing of interest there, is where they draw the line, its pretty crazy sometimes.

frenchyd said:

    My concern is about those  in the 1%  who have access to wealth privilege and power they haven't earned.  

Why?  Did they steal it from you personally?

frenchyd said:

    My concern is about those  in the 1%  who have access to wealth privilege and power they haven't earned.  

Who is the arbiter of if they've "earned" it? Are you advocating against the passing of wealth from parents to children, because thats a great way to further shrink the middle class.

Most generational wealth in the us is created and passed through real estate. If two working class parents leave their child their home after they die, that guy is, in most places in the US, in the top 1% that year. It is the most common way the middle class creates and passes generational wealth, and people escape the lower classes. Those children didnt do anything to earn it except being born to hard working parents, are they entitled to the priviledges it affords them?

Where do you draw the line?

In this country it used to be considered a common and good thing to work hard to better your children's lives, including building something for them or leaving them something when your gone. Now its demonized.

In reply to frenchyd :

In the US, 9 out of 10 millionaires are self made and started with nothing. Success cuts across all demographic and geographic lines in the US.  Anyone with a bit of intelligence and work ethic can do it here. 

In reply to tester (Forum Supporter) :

People that complain about the 1% having not earned it have heard that 1000 times, tester, they just keep ignoring it and pretending they are the arbiter of who really earned it or not, and trying to justify why not earning it is actually bad.

BTW the 1% arent all millionaires in most of the country.

Opti said:

In reply to tester (Forum Supporter) :

People that complain about the 1% having not earned it have heard that 1000 times, tester, they just keep ignoring it and pretending they are the arbiter of who really earned it or not, and trying to justify why not earning it is actually bad.

BTW the 1% arent all millionaires in most of the country.

Nobody proposing policy change for 'The 1%' is talking about a person with a healthy 401k, or who owns their own home outright. They're talking about people that are typically worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

The minimum net worth of a household in 'The  top 1%' is $10.5- 12 million by every source I've found.

Depending on the source, around 1/4-1/3 of the Billionaires on the planet call the US home.

'The 1%' now own nearly 54% of privately held shares

This Federal Reserve data set on net worth is interesting. If we look at 10 year increments historically we see that:

1990 Q4: 'The 1%' had net worth of $4.86 Trillion while the bottom 90% had combined net worth of $8.69 Trillion. So 'The 1%' had 56% of the wealth of the bottom 90%.

2000 Q4: 'The 1%' net worth was $11.19 Trillion, bottom 90% was $16.06 Trillion. 'The 1%' had 69% of the wealth of the bottom 90%

2010 Q4: 'The 1%' net worth was $17.78 T, bottom 90% was $19.8 T. 'The 1%' now has 90% of the wealth of the bottom 90%

2020 Q4: 'The 1%' net worth is now $38.86 T, bottom 90% was $38.15 T. 'The 1%' has 102% of the wealth of the bottom 90%

That doesn't seem like a healthy trend to me, and it's why inequality is higher than it's been in at least 70 years:

The trend in inequality started to increase in the early 70s right after the US left the Gold Standard, and corporations began to adopt Friedman's views on duty to shareholders.

Duke said:

frenchyd said:

    My concern is about those  in the 1%  who have access to wealth privilege and power they haven't earned.  

Why?  Did they steal it from you personally?

 

Duke; 

 Do you even understand why America declared its independence?  It's because a King who was king not for his merit but because of his bloodline and time of birth. ( oldest son) tried to tell America what to do.  

I have no problem with people earning  wealth.   Good for them.  My problem is those who got powerful because of their bloodlines.  
    If daddy paid the same percentage of taxes that his employees do.  Fair enough. Teach your children as well as you can.   Let them start from where you started from.  Wish them well and the rest goes back where it came from.  ( this country) 

     I think it's cruel to raise kids to feel entitled to something they didn't earn.  
   How many rich kids wind up wasting their lives on drink, drugs, and frivolities? Knowing they aren't expected to do what their parents did and they can't spend what they have in their lifetimes.  
     
     My standards of conduct are Americans Like George Washington Thomas Jefferson, John Adams.   

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy, what do you plan to leave to your offspring? Surely your house? A Jag or two, maybe a savings account?