Originally posted by whodeyNo maximum wage, just progressive taxation. The WW2 national debt was being paid off very successfully with progressive taxation under Truman, Ike and JFK, and GDP growth was much better than during the Reagan-Bush era.
If we have a minimum wage, then we must also have a maximum wage.
If the government can tell us what we are worth we must have a maximum wage as well.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell duh!
Even if this absurdly juvenile proposal were to be put in practise, it would just lead to the government using contractors for everything.
You get a Govt job as a last resort, not a first choice in a job. At least that is how it should be.
Govt job are a service. You shouldn't want a Govt job to become rich, but to help people.
Originally posted by RBHILLYeah, all those taxpayer-funded and/or taxpayer-subsidized tenured professors should start flipping burgers.
Well duh!
You get a Govt job as a last resort, not a first choice in a job. At least that is how it should be.
Govt job are a service. You shouldn't want a Govt job to become rich, but to help people.
Originally posted by karnachzYou missed the key item in the timeline, Nixon's blow up of the Gold Standard. And the subsequent floating dollar theory originated by Friedman and followed since by the Fed. Progressive taxation has little to nothing to do with paying down the dept up until Ike. Hardly anyone paid the highest marginal rates, so not much revenue was generated.
No maximum wage, just progressive taxation. The WW2 national debt was being paid off very successfully with progressive taxation under Truman, Ike and JFK, and GDP growth was much better than during the Reagan-Bush era.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMiddlemen don't necessarily increase costs. They usually facilitate transactions, by making goods and services available where they wouldn't be otherwise.
It adds a middleman and would thus likely lead to increased costs.
Market forces of supply and demand operate on middlemen to restrain price increases. No such restraint exists for government employees, who get politicians elected and then expect a payback.
Originally posted by normbenignSometimes a middleman is useful, but there is no reason in particular you would want or need one in case of a city council clerk, for instance. And there is certainly no reason why one would want to mandate local and national governments to use middlemen for all their hiring.
Middlemen don't necessarily increase costs. They usually facilitate transactions, by making goods and services available where they wouldn't be otherwise.
Market forces of supply and demand operate on middlemen to restrain price increases. No such restraint exists for government employees, who get politicians elected and then expect a payback.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf that city council clerk is being paid twice what that job typically is paid in the private sector, there is a reason to employ a middle man. It is quite typical that workers on government jobs are paid 50% t0 100% more than their private sector counterparts.
Sometimes a middleman is useful, but there is no reason in particular you would want or need one in case of a city council clerk, for instance. And there is certainly no reason why one would want to mandate local and national governments to use middlemen for all their hiring.
This usually can be credited to the political support of SEIU and other public sector unions to candidates on one side. The raises then aren't merit based but political payoffs, might as well say bribes.
Originally posted by RBHILLMost of the jobs that government employees do in most countries are those generally accepted by society to be necessary, eg, teachers, doctors, nurses, rubbish collectors, firefighters (as you mentioned). That's why the state does them. It would be odd if these jobs, without which society would fall apart, didn't receive a reasonably decent renumeration.
Well duh!
You get a Govt job as a last resort, not a first choice in a job. At least that is how it should be.
Govt job are a service. You shouldn't want a Govt job to become rich, but to help people.
It would never occur to me to think about whether a job was a government job or a private job when I applied for it. I'd be thinking about whether it suited my skills and qualifications and whether I thought the job itself would be personally fulfilling and socially useful.
Originally posted by normbenignIt is quite typical that workers on government jobs are paid 50% t0 100% more than their private sector counterparts.
If that city council clerk is being paid twice what that job typically is paid in the private sector, there is a reason to employ a middle man. It is quite typical that workers on government jobs are paid 50% t0 100% more than their private sector counterparts.
This usually can be credited to the political support of SEIU and other public sector uni ...[text shortened]... n one side. The raises then aren't merit based but political payoffs, might as well say bribes.
Really? That's certainly not the case around these parts. Where did you get that figure?