The writers strike is another clear indicator that in addition to minimum wage we also need maximum wage.
The maximum wage difference between the highest and lowest paid persons (including part time, temps, and contractors) must be one order of magnitude.
Sure, the executives at the studio or streaming service can still pay themself twenty million dollars a year, but only if the writers are getting two million dollars a year.
3 notes
·
View notes
Wealth vs Capital
I think a lot of people consider “wealth” to be just one big, lumpy pot of money, with some forms of wealth being homes, other being cash, other being stocks, etc.
This can be unhelpful for understanding certain dynamics.
Capital are assets someone owns, yes, but they are different from something like cash bc capital accumulates more wealth. At the same time, capital is usually what pulls wealth out of the hands of those without control of capital.
Let’s look at the simple example of owning property:
If you own your home, it may be worth a lot of money but it does not really generate money. Though it does typically rise in value over time, it’s not an asset which inherently produces anything, either product or profit.
But let’s say you own someone else’s home: Now the property is truly capital. You make money off of it by charging a bit more than its cost. This helps the landlord to accrue additional money, and grow their wealth.
In contrast, that money is coming from the renter, who, as a result of not owning the house, has to pay more than it’s worth to the landlord, thereby reducing the renter’s wealth.
Wealth is a more neutral term for just having things of value. Capital are things of value which bring in *additional* value - typically at the expense of those without capital.
This is one reason why I get annoyed when people try to fix our system by providing wealth (i.e. money) to people but ignore the capital component. They are ignoring that which causes the non-wealthy to lose money. It’s like having a hole in your boat, but instead of someone plugging the hole, they buy you a bucket. They are not addressing the *source* of the issue (often bc philanthropists have made their money precisely with their use of capital!).
Furthermore, while money can obviously help someone (just like the bucket), it can also worsen the situation overall. For instance, housing vouchers. When the gov’t gives people money to help pay their rent, it does help the person receiving it, but it also causes rental prices to rise, bc the root issue overall isn’t a lack of funds, but a lack of houses. Similarly, if, say, the minimum wage increased, that would likely cause housing prices to increase. In the long run, it’s just a complicated way to give even more money to those with capital.
The real solution is to give people *capital*, not wealth. E.g. Build homes that are rented without a profit motive. That alone could bring down costs by around 5-15% for those renters. Furthermore, an even 1% increase in available housing can reduce *overall* housing costs for everyone, even those renting regular units, by up to 10%!
Another example: Medical treatment. Instead of giving people money to pay for exorbitantly priced medicine, just produce the medicine and sell it at cost. This keeps prices low and doesn’t reward big pharma for price gouging. (Shout out to Cali which is planning to do something like this.)
It is this price gouging on homes, medicine, etc which suck money out of average people’s hands and into the hands of the rich. It is not just wealth: It is a means of accruing more wealth at the expense of average citizens.
The obvious issue is that capital is expensive. It costs a lot of money to build homes and manufacturing facilities etc. However, the gov’t can afford such big and long-term investments. And it seems to me that it would save everyone more money and heartache in the long run. And it wouldn’t remove choice bc people can still choose to rent private, for-market units, or buy medicine from expensive manufacturers. But people should have the choice to not be exploited for basic living needs, like food, shelter, education, and medicine.
In short, our society isn’t just suffering from wealth inequality, we’re primarily suffering from capital inequality. i.e. capitalism.
2 notes
·
View notes
The Bootlicker's Guide to Justifying White-Collar Poverty
The Bootlicker’s Guide to Justifying White-Collar Poverty (Spoiler: There Isn’t One)
Ah, the 21st century. A time when we’ve sent rovers to Mars, developed self-driving cars, and can order a pizza with a single emoji. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, we still have people defending unlivable wages. If you’ve ever caught yourself making excuses for the modern-day travesty that is white-collar…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Maximum Wage
The maximum wage difference from the lowest paid person on a payroll to the highest paid person on the payroll ought to be a factor of 10. This includes all levels and forms of compensation.
C. Douglas McMillon received about $20,000,000.00 in 2021 working for WamLart (misspelled deliberately, not a fan of WamLart). I would brook no argument against this if the lowest paid worker got $2,000,000.00 (or the equivalent for their fraction of total hours worked out of 40 per week).
This also means if C. Douglas got to fly 20 hours in a corporate jet on family business or for recreation then employees ought to get 2 hours in the jet. You can’t really go far in two hours so employees would be free to trade or sell those hours (back to WamLart).
Corporations are mostly corrupt, so of course they would try to do an end-around by hiring temps and contractors. Not a problem because we could pen the law to say any temps or contractors rates would have to fall somewhere in the payscale as well, they cannot be paid less than regular part-time or full time workers.
Also, total compensation for nonworker-investors would also not be allowed to exceed that of the lowest paid employees. If the dividend payout to a stockholder would be greater than the full time annual equivalent of the lowest paid employee, then the dividend payout is capped, the excess goes back into the company portfolio and can then be distributed across all employees at each level to scale. Ditto for stock buybacks, the seller of stock can sell it back to the company up to the limit of the lowest paid employee, all other stock they wish to sell would have to go on the open market.
It would not be easy to get this made into law, but it would be fair and equitable.
0 notes
all this talk of how the "foundation of european football is under threat" and "it's time for change" and yet not one of those 50+ stakeholders being spoken to thought to themselves hmmm are we (the people running football and destroying it with an insurmountable wealth gap at the top of the game that's creating 1 team leagues and maybe 5 favourites every champions league season that goes onto have reprecussions down the football pyramids) possibly to blame for what's happening here? no it's UEFA and the current domestic and european systems that are at fault
4 notes
·
View notes