New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's true, but irrelevant to the subpoint. You're so attached to your original incorrect point that you're giving up the subpoint. Cool, let's return to your original point.

We're still at our impasse, the mystical CEO who pays his/her people twice, or something, of what the market will bear. Bear in mind that the CEO does not set his/her own salary, the board typically does that. Now, this mystical CEO -- let's say it's a he, and he's running a supermarket chain. He could set the price of a can of peas to $5.00. Why doesn't he do that? He'd sure make a lot more money for salaries.

Let's call him "the owner", so that we can say he has total power over his compnay. He could raise the price of peas. On the other hand, he could be satisfied with keeping 25% or 50% of his possible take. What's so wrong about making $100,000, if it means that you'll get better performance and loyalty from your employees, or sell more units, or whatever?

This is like the board game Risk. Have you ever played? Let's say you control Noth America. You could put 20 armies each on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 1 army on each of the other countries, or you could put 10 armies on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 2-4 armies on the rest of the coutries. Which makes for a more secure continent?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

A child only needs enough money to buy a piece of candy. A young man only needs enough money for a tank of gas and a bottle of whiskey. Then, he knocks up a girl, and now he needs enough money to buy a house; enough money to raise a child. Then he needs enough money to put that kid through college. Then he needs enough money to pay for his kid's wedding. Then he needs enough money to retire comfortably.

All along the way, he has strived to earn more and more money, to meet his increasing responsibilities. He has learned to be prepared for emergencies, and always have some savings set aside. There is no static amount that constitutes "enough" money.

If wolves were clawing at your door, how many bullets would you feel are "enough" to protect your family?

Originally Posted by lookout123

wow, i never thought i would look forward to discussing anything with DLM until i tried to discuss something with spexxvet. At least tw is man enough to just walk away and ignore the questions rather than pretend he has answered the question in some cute intellectually lazy manner.

until spexx can come up with something more quantifiable than his warm fuzzy "you know" answers i'm done here. too bad, could have been an interesting discussion.

As Flint said, there is no "one number". I'm sorry that you can't conceptualize it the way he has. And no matter what number I put out there, it won't be the right one as far as you're concerned. Then it will become a straw man. All of which means one thing: I won.

Speaking only for myself - I will not accept, over my entire lifetime, any more than $10,000,000, adjusted for inflation. That would represent an income, from all sources, of $200,000 /year, for a work-life of 50 years.YMMV

[Undertoad]

Right -- the owner could raise the price of a can of peas to $5

What happens if he does that?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Right -- the owner could raise the price of a can of peas to $5

What happens if he does that?

That's what happens now - you get inflation. I'm talking about a whole new way of behaving. One where greed and selfishness take a back seat to what best for the whole - economy, nation, world, species - whatever. I'm not saying that that the owner has to give up all his income, he just needs to accept somewhat less, so that others can have somewhat more. You may say that it'll never happen, that people are naturally self-interested, and won't give up any of their loot (Clod and Lookout are fighting pretty hard). Maybe I'm naive, but I see this as a win/win solution to the problem of the shrinking middle class, the welfare system, and the high taxes resulting from the welfare system. "The owner" can continue with the status quo, and continue the system of "government extortion", and the bitching that goes with it, or he can embrace an entirely new mindset, where his voluntary actions change the system.

Annecdote: My father-in-law owned a plumbing business. He compensted his employees at a higher level than he needed to. He took care of hs guys. He could have paid them as little as he could, and replace them when they got fed up and left. He could have closed up shop, if a union was voted in, and opened up down the street under a different name, without the union. He could have allowed a union to come in, and charged his customers more. But he chose to put less in his pocket.

[skysidhe]

This is like splitting atoms huh?


*thinking and wondering if I should add the dunce emoticon so people know I am joking*
* or it could be to let them know I am too duncy to get it*

[Undertoad]

I guess your A's were in macroeconomics. We're talking micro, here. Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?

[DanaC]

Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?

.......maybe if they were really, really, nice peas?

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I guess your A's were in macroeconomics. We're talking micro, here. Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?

I know it's not my question but I don't believe buying expensive peas causes inflation because there is someone selling peas for less. If I buy the cheaper peas this might make the other seller reduce prices to be able to compete.

The whole premise behind supply and demand.

Does buying an expensive product set an inflation rate? I don't think so.

However.
I noticed that sugar took a price hike. I assumed it was the cost of fuel to ship it inland. I think the same supply and demand rule applys making the people producing a product look for ways to pass savings onto the consumer.



sorry if I interupted

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by DanaC

.......maybe if they were really, really, nice peas?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Annecdote: My father-in-law owned a plumbing business. He compensted his employees at a higher level than he needed to. He took care of hs guys. He could have paid them as little as he could, and replace them when they got fed up and left. He could have closed up shop, if a union was voted in, and opened up down the street under a different name, without the union. He could have allowed a union to come in, and charged his customers more. But he chose to put less in his pocket.

And here's the point you're missing: your father-in-law did that so that he could retain the best employees for his business. If everyone did that, there would be no incentive for those employees to stay with your father-in-law, and the definition of "being taken care of" would have to change.

[Undertoad]

sorry if I interupted

Not at all, Sky, we will need you to answer the questions if spexx completely whiffs.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I guess your A's were in macroeconomics. We're talking micro, here. Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?

No.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And here's the point you're missing: your father-in-law did that so that he could retain the best employees for his business. If everyone did that, there would be no incentive for those employees to stay with your father-in-law, and the definition of "being taken care of" would have to change.

Here's the point your missing: his employees stayed with him, he had a long-lasting, successful business, was content with the amount of income he kept, and his employees were content with the amount if income they earned.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Right -- the owner could raise the price of a can of peas to $5

What happens if he does that?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

No.

But my point is that the owner doesn't have to raise the price - he can accept less in his own pocket.

[lookout123]

All of which means one thing: I won.

If your definition of winning is to avoid any real substantive discussion until others give up and walk away... yep, you win.