Quote:
|
The bottom line is this - if individuals were doing a good enough job caring for those in need, the government would not have to provide for them at all. So, just like communism, your idea has failed.
|
define a "good enoughjob caring for those in need". Who's standard of living are we trying to get them to? yours? mine? a CEO's?
you just don't get it. just handing more money to people on the bottom of the payscale doesn't increase their position relative to the CEO, all it does is increase things across the board. If the broom pushing janitor (who is important but generally less skilled) suddenly gets a pay raise to $20 hour (@$42,000/year) you'll feel good because now they can get a nicer car or a better tv, or whatever it is they set their priority as. But wait, the guy who assembles the machine says "back the Eff up." If he is worth $20, I'm now worth $45, and if you don't give it to me, i go on strike." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he has more disposeable income and you're happy because 2 people on the lower end of the payscale are making more. Except the engineer that designs the machine says, "BS! if the schmoe who assembles my ideas gets $45, I'm worth $80 or I quit." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he makes more money and he can pay off his last student loan. Uh oh, our government hasn't gotten rid of the alternative minimum tax so now he owes more to uncle sam... so now he isn't happy again. But you're ecstatic because 2 lower payscale individuals are making more money, and one midscale is making more and the awesome part is that now Uncle Sam gets to sift more of that poor sucker's money through the system to help "the poor". Happy day. Except the plant manager says "oh hell no, if my designer gets $80/hour, i get $150... and so on and so on.
See this process is called inflation. For a very brief period of time the people on the bottom are elevated in relation to the people at the top, but it is temporary, soon everyone is just elevated compared to their old positions but you'll have to start campaigning for the people at the bottom again, because they are just as far behind the people at the top as they ever were.
someone was talking about the importance of the worker vs the manager vs the exec. you're right, the product can't be produced and the company can't prosper if a cog is missing at any step. But you completely miss the point that if a company needs to hire a janitor all they need to do is find someone who can hold a broom. Just about anyone can do that. If they need an assembler there are a few less people who can do that. If they need a designer there is a limited pool of qualified people available. If they need a plant manager the pool of talent becomes distinctly smaller. If they need a CEO there is a very very small pool of available talent. It is the simple law of supply and demand. The CEO (the commodity) is in limited supply so he is worth far more than the guy who can be replaced by anyone with a pulse. That's life.