The real fix is getting government out of the way. There needs to be regulations, but the fewer the better. Minimum wage is a stupid, inflationary idea. Tying wages to earnings is saying that government knows how to run a business, so clearly that's a fail as well. I would cut corporate taxes, but then require that the most highly paid employee at a company not be compensated more than X times what the least compensated employee gets. Note I said compensated. Stock options, health insurance, cash... it all counts. We can haggle over what "X" should be. 4000? 3? Maybe we start at 10,000 and drop a zero every few years for a decade or so. We can haggle over that too. But at the end of it all we don't have the government sucking productivity from our companies to spend it on their pet projects at public expense, and we don't have companies where the c-suite execs make 9-digit salaries while the workers can barely put food on the table.
That is exactly where I started when planning this video, the problem I came across is the same as what you've said, where do you place the line? "10x is absurd and 10,000 doesn't seem anywhere close" was almost exactly what I thought to myself, it also seemed rather arbitrary personally during research and writing I settled in on a profit-sharing model that seemed to present a better over all and acceptable solution. I also agree that fewer regulation are better for business, that being said we need to remember that its the larger corpos that are lobbying for more regulation to limit competition. I appreciate someone who is capable of a nuanced view and discussion on this like yourself, thank you for sharing your thoughts!
@@SgtJoeSmith I don't think that's what he's saying Sgt Smith, no one is saying that the brass shouldn't make more than the grunts, what we are saying is that the proportions are out of control in the context of massive corporations. I like your passion for this topic, I advocate free speech, and I notice you are rather active in the comments on this one I would just request you try to keep things civil as you have so far.
Absolutely, the tax code is a whole other beast entirely and I'll probably tackle that one at a later time, but as it pertains to the video with inflation rising and costs climbing the only way atm to increase buying power is to increase income, this is more stable than just raising the minimums, but you are correct its not the only thing that needs to change, appreciate your comment!
People always gloss over the fact that SS retirement and SSDI benefits are restricted by the federal minimum wage. The Federal government dictates that poverty begins at $15, 060 and below. There isn't a single place in this country where that's feasible to live off of.
salary equality band that deducts taxes to the company in a % in accordance with a scale, that way you have ceo´s vs stock holders. Max a 1 to 18 ratio, (lower than in 1970). Heavy coorporate taxes on earnings, make companies that operate in your country have to pay taxes in such country, dont allow companies to buy back their own stock, ban chinese, and most asian products with tarifs in a gradual manner to have industry back, make subentions for entrepreneurs (actuall entrepreneurs, not coorporations disguised), have politicians disclose their endorsments. right now most democracies are oligarchies, destroy the party system that allows only their own candidates to be noticed. Revive the middle class!! and democracy.
Brilliantly stated sir! That's the kind of engagement I like to see! I'm here to provoke thought and you sir have had and excellent and articulate one, well done! Thank you very much!
This only works if you assume the employee is going to be making more because I guarantee the second that paycheck is less this will not be a good idea.
@@DrexHawkens Think hollywood accounting -- if you tie wages to 'earnings'. companies will be incentivized to restructure so that the entity that employs the workers has the minimal possible earnings, while the sister/parent companies (that have few employees but all the investors/stockholders) capture all the profit. Sort of how companies shift their income to offshore / low-tax areas with accounting games.
Ah! I understand now. Thank you @Toramt . I'm absolutely not advocating for using Hollywood as an example for any good business model by any means. The implementation would likely require some legal or regulatory measures to prevent what you have described, but I would also advocate for doing so regardless, that is kinda BS imo. Thank you for clarifying!
@@Toramt Not only shell companies / parent companies but also time of year. For instance Toys R Us I worked at did 90% of it's yearly sales in December. Even just a bad year or quarter for income could lower your paycheck. Farming and harvest time is another example. You get the idea though companies would be incentivized to shuffle around employees to maximize profits kept instead of paid out for labor in all new ways. The instant a company starts not making as much as it did the employees paychecks go down.
@@OhCanadaGamer Again, no employee could or should ever go bellow what they are making currently, that just wouldn't make sense. We have to remember that we are not starting from 0 sum we have the current pay rates and and wages that this was meant to almost build off of, you need a floor, the argument is about not raising it and doing something different, if the profits are made in December then they get shared in December.
No employee could or should ever go bellow what they are making currently, that just wouldn't make sense. We have to remember that we are not starting from 0 sum we have the current pay rates and and wages that this was meant to almost build off of, you need a floor, the argument is about not raising it and doing something different, I like that you're questioning the idea, every idea should be scrutinized. Keep it up!
Are you talking about a bonus structure? Every company I have worked for has a bonus structure. What is the difference between what you are proposing and the current bonus model at most corps?
This is not a bonus structure, this is a profit sharing model. For example where bonuses are typically handed out quarterly or annually (and mostly concentrated at the top) this puts the money into the paychecks directly, instead of waiting till the end of the year the profits get shared as they come in. Does that answer your question? I can go further into this later when I have more time if need be, thank you for your comment!
@@DrexHawkens I could see that being an accounting nightmare. Maybe they would do it once a month or so, that would be much less burdensome on a company. Also, I thought about the comment after I posted it, and bonus structures are dependent on non profit related factors such as safety as well as profit related factors. So I could see making the bonus based on only profit. There would need to be other controls in place, such as a cap between the top bonus and the lowest bonus, as I could see the CEO giving himself 99% of the bonus and everybody else splitting up the 1%. Also, stocks are given to CEOs as another form of compensation, and generally that is where most of their wealth comes from. How would you handle stock options in your ideal corporation? I would argue that wealth is more important than money in today's economy. Wealth allows you to earn more money indefinitely while money is always losing value due to inflation. So anything like stock options increases a CEOs wealth. Would you propose any bonus, wealth or monetary needs to be distributed more equitably? I can agree with that.
OR - and here me out - Overhaul the ****** zoning laws and make buying & rents less expensive thus giving people better opportunity to found their own business. Also fix the way small businesses are treated.
That's an interesting solution. There's also a larger issue of not enough homes being built compounded by companies like BlackRock buying up all the houses to rent them out, I honestly haven't seen the housing market this topsy-turvy since 2008, to me it looks like a similar problem just with different causes and it will have different effects. Thank you for sharing!
@@DrexHawkens Yeah, unfortunately this time we have both unlimited money on one side and political strife on the other. I do not see any crash coming this time.
I understand what you are saying, to clarify, in the last 40 years wages have only gone up 18%, that may sound like a lot but the profits have gone up 1300%+ so the wages have not increased relative to earnings, in many ways the ratio has actually gone down as time has gone on. None the less I thank you for your comment!
@@HarshColby In a manner of speaking, profits are a % of sales, they are the net gain once expenses including payroll is made, that "net gain" under our current model is pocketed by the execs and doesn't make it to the lower level workers, this model would force the companies to have to share that to the lower levels and not hoard it at the top, and to be honest when I say model I mean a concept that could be refined into a model, given enough time and thought I'm sure I could outline a more detailed way of how I would implement something like this but that's well beyond the scope of what this video is about, I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think that I can restructure over 10,000 years of economic progress over night, haha. I seem to have lost your other comment so I will add an addendum here: I see what you're saying, obviously no employee could or should ever go bellow what they are making currently, that just wouldn't make sense. We have to remember that we are not starting from 0 sum we have the current pay rates and and wages that this was meant to almost build off of, you need a floor, the argument is about not raising it and doing something different, I like that you're questioning the idea, every idea should be scrutinized. Keep it up!
This is true, I had a relative that live through the 1940-1984 as a minimum wage worker in a major US City. He was able to afford a 2 week vacation every year. However he did not spent $400-$1200 a month being connected to this "digital universe" and he had the same car for 30 years mainly walked to work. Some people spend over a quarter of their income on being connected to the digital universe. Cell phone, internet services, cable tv, hulu, prime, x box accounts, plays station accounts. etc... Also minimum wage is an entry level job, people are not supposed to camp there it to learn basic job skills and a minimum time cost and expense.
You know there's a video idea on its own right there, we are way more connected than ever and in many ways its not necessary, most of the "connections" are just new ways companies are trying to scam you.
@@geezescopildo895 You know there's a video idea on its own right there, we are way more connected than ever and in many ways its not necessary, most of the "connections" are just new ways companies are trying to scam you.
@@DrexHawkens I lived in Europe of 15 years you're not seeing the whole picture there. Yeah, there is more income equality in Germany for example, but that because of the progressive tax rates. Again in Germany if you are making 15000 euros a year it 0% tax rate but if you are making 66,000 euros it 42%. Only one get a share of the wealth is the government in Germany. An again income generated outside of the Germany is not subject tax, if in easily arranged legal devices.
The real fix is getting government out of the way. There needs to be regulations, but the fewer the better. Minimum wage is a stupid, inflationary idea. Tying wages to earnings is saying that government knows how to run a business, so clearly that's a fail as well. I would cut corporate taxes, but then require that the most highly paid employee at a company not be compensated more than X times what the least compensated employee gets. Note I said compensated. Stock options, health insurance, cash... it all counts. We can haggle over what "X" should be. 4000? 3? Maybe we start at 10,000 and drop a zero every few years for a decade or so. We can haggle over that too. But at the end of it all we don't have the government sucking productivity from our companies to spend it on their pet projects at public expense, and we don't have companies where the c-suite execs make 9-digit salaries while the workers can barely put food on the table.
That is exactly where I started when planning this video, the problem I came across is the same as what you've said, where do you place the line? "10x is absurd and 10,000 doesn't seem anywhere close" was almost exactly what I thought to myself, it also seemed rather arbitrary personally during research and writing I settled in on a profit-sharing model that seemed to present a better over all and acceptable solution. I also agree that fewer regulation are better for business, that being said we need to remember that its the larger corpos that are lobbying for more regulation to limit competition. I appreciate someone who is capable of a nuanced view and discussion on this like yourself, thank you for sharing your thoughts!
@@SgtJoeSmith I don't think that's what he's saying Sgt Smith, no one is saying that the brass shouldn't make more than the grunts, what we are saying is that the proportions are out of control in the context of massive corporations. I like your passion for this topic, I advocate free speech, and I notice you are rather active in the comments on this one I would just request you try to keep things civil as you have so far.
The higher your wages the more the government gets. You want buying power not gross income
Absolutely, the tax code is a whole other beast entirely and I'll probably tackle that one at a later time, but as it pertains to the video with inflation rising and costs climbing the only way atm to increase buying power is to increase income, this is more stable than just raising the minimums, but you are correct its not the only thing that needs to change, appreciate your comment!
People always gloss over the fact that SS retirement and SSDI benefits are restricted by the federal minimum wage. The Federal government dictates that poverty begins at $15, 060 and below. There isn't a single place in this country where that's feasible to live off of.
Absolutely! My grand parents like off of SSI and pensions and is the mid west that's hand to mouth income.
salary equality band that deducts taxes to the company in a % in accordance with a scale, that way you have ceo´s vs stock holders. Max a 1 to 18 ratio, (lower than in 1970). Heavy coorporate taxes on earnings, make companies that operate in your country have to pay taxes in such country, dont allow companies to buy back their own stock, ban chinese, and most asian products with tarifs in a gradual manner to have industry back, make subentions for entrepreneurs (actuall entrepreneurs, not coorporations disguised), have politicians disclose their endorsments. right now most democracies are oligarchies, destroy the party system that allows only their own candidates to be noticed. Revive the middle class!! and democracy.
Brilliantly stated sir! That's the kind of engagement I like to see! I'm here to provoke thought and you sir have had and excellent and articulate one, well done! Thank you very much!
This only works if you assume the employee is going to be making more because I guarantee the second that paycheck is less this will not be a good idea.
Would you care to elaborate further? I'm not sure how with this system current paychecks could shrink, I'm curious about your thought process on this.
@@DrexHawkens Think hollywood accounting -- if you tie wages to 'earnings'. companies will be incentivized to restructure so that the entity that employs the workers has the minimal possible earnings, while the sister/parent companies (that have few employees but all the investors/stockholders) capture all the profit. Sort of how companies shift their income to offshore / low-tax areas with accounting games.
Ah! I understand now. Thank you @Toramt . I'm absolutely not advocating for using Hollywood as an example for any good business model by any means. The implementation would likely require some legal or regulatory measures to prevent what you have described, but I would also advocate for doing so regardless, that is kinda BS imo. Thank you for clarifying!
@@Toramt Not only shell companies / parent companies but also time of year. For instance Toys R Us I worked at did 90% of it's yearly sales in December. Even just a bad year or quarter for income could lower your paycheck. Farming and harvest time is another example. You get the idea though companies would be incentivized to shuffle around employees to maximize profits kept instead of paid out for labor in all new ways. The instant a company starts not making as much as it did the employees paychecks go down.
@@OhCanadaGamer Again, no employee could or should ever go bellow what they are making currently, that just wouldn't make sense. We have to remember that we are not starting from 0 sum we have the current pay rates and and wages that this was meant to almost build off of, you need a floor, the argument is about not raising it and doing something different, if the profits are made in December then they get shared in December.
If we are to get profit sharing when business grow what is your suggestion when businesses begin to fail? Our income will decrease?
No employee could or should ever go bellow what they are making currently, that just wouldn't make sense. We have to remember that we are not starting from 0 sum we have the current pay rates and and wages that this was meant to almost build off of, you need a floor, the argument is about not raising it and doing something different, I like that you're questioning the idea, every idea should be scrutinized. Keep it up!
Are you talking about a bonus structure? Every company I have worked for has a bonus structure. What is the difference between what you are proposing and the current bonus model at most corps?
This is not a bonus structure, this is a profit sharing model. For example where bonuses are typically handed out quarterly or annually (and mostly concentrated at the top) this puts the money into the paychecks directly, instead of waiting till the end of the year the profits get shared as they come in. Does that answer your question? I can go further into this later when I have more time if need be, thank you for your comment!
@@DrexHawkens I could see that being an accounting nightmare. Maybe they would do it once a month or so, that would be much less burdensome on a company. Also, I thought about the comment after I posted it, and bonus structures are dependent on non profit related factors such as safety as well as profit related factors. So I could see making the bonus based on only profit. There would need to be other controls in place, such as a cap between the top bonus and the lowest bonus, as I could see the CEO giving himself 99% of the bonus and everybody else splitting up the 1%. Also, stocks are given to CEOs as another form of compensation, and generally that is where most of their wealth comes from. How would you handle stock options in your ideal corporation? I would argue that wealth is more important than money in today's economy. Wealth allows you to earn more money indefinitely while money is always losing value due to inflation. So anything like stock options increases a CEOs wealth. Would you propose any bonus, wealth or monetary needs to be distributed more equitably? I can agree with that.
OR - and here me out - Overhaul the ****** zoning laws and make buying & rents less expensive thus giving people better opportunity to found their own business. Also fix the way small businesses are treated.
That's an interesting solution. There's also a larger issue of not enough homes being built compounded by companies like BlackRock buying up all the houses to rent them out, I honestly haven't seen the housing market this topsy-turvy since 2008, to me it looks like a similar problem just with different causes and it will have different effects. Thank you for sharing!
@@DrexHawkens Yeah, unfortunately this time we have both unlimited money on one side and political strife on the other. I do not see any crash coming this time.
@@Bapate-rh9be I don't see one either, I see a crisis of the plebs against the corporations, but likely no crash.
Wages are already tied to corporate earnings. Higher earnings = more hiring, higher wages. Lower earnings = less hiring, lower wages.
I understand what you are saying, to clarify, in the last 40 years wages have only gone up 18%, that may sound like a lot but the profits have gone up 1300%+ so the wages have not increased relative to earnings, in many ways the ratio has actually gone down as time has gone on. None the less I thank you for your comment!
@@HarshColby In a manner of speaking, profits are a % of sales, they are the net gain once expenses including payroll is made, that "net gain" under our current model is pocketed by the execs and doesn't make it to the lower level workers, this model would force the companies to have to share that to the lower levels and not hoard it at the top, and to be honest when I say model I mean a concept that could be refined into a model, given enough time and thought I'm sure I could outline a more detailed way of how I would implement something like this but that's well beyond the scope of what this video is about, I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think that I can restructure over 10,000 years of economic progress over night, haha.
I seem to have lost your other comment so I will add an addendum here: I see what you're saying, obviously no employee could or should ever go bellow what they are making currently, that just wouldn't make sense. We have to remember that we are not starting from 0 sum we have the current pay rates and and wages that this was meant to almost build off of, you need a floor, the argument is about not raising it and doing something different, I like that you're questioning the idea, every idea should be scrutinized. Keep it up!
if minimum wage not keep up with inflation then your going to have issues yeah and you are right on the subject
This is true, I had a relative that live through the 1940-1984 as a minimum wage worker in a major US City. He was able to afford a 2 week vacation every year. However he did not spent $400-$1200 a month being connected to this "digital universe" and he had the same car for 30 years mainly walked to work. Some people spend over a quarter of their income on being connected to the digital universe. Cell phone, internet services, cable tv, hulu, prime, x box accounts, plays station accounts. etc... Also minimum wage is an entry level job, people are not supposed to camp there it to learn basic job skills and a minimum time cost and expense.
Appreciate the comment, we have to do something I'm just offering my take to the public.
You know there's a video idea on its own right there, we are way more connected than ever and in many ways its not necessary, most of the "connections" are just new ways companies are trying to scam you.
@@geezescopildo895 You know there's a video idea on its own right there, we are way more connected than ever and in many ways its not necessary, most of the "connections" are just new ways companies are trying to scam you.
@@DrexHawkens I lived in Europe of 15 years you're not seeing the whole picture there. Yeah, there is more income equality in Germany for example, but that because of the progressive tax rates. Again in Germany if you are making 15000 euros a year it 0% tax rate but if you are making 66,000 euros it 42%. Only one get a share of the wealth is the government in Germany. An again income generated outside of the Germany is not subject tax, if in easily arranged legal devices.
this is smart
Thank you! Your compliment is much appreciated! Stick around for more bud!