Support NeoGAF

[cpp_is_king]

Absolutely not. That system is punishes the fuck out of poor people just for being poor. If you're rich enough to buy houses just to rent them out, you're rich enough period and can live without the extra income.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. The government already has a charity system, it's called welfare, section 8, whatever it is where you live. If everything is based strictly on sq ft, does an old dilapidated house in a shitty part of town cost the same as a brand new house with updated everything in a nice part of town, as long as they're the sme size?

If your definition of rich is being able to buy a house, you have a strange definition. I bought a house a few years ago, was a very cheap house, my neighbors were manual laborers, maybe illegal, to give you an idea. When i moved i rented out the house instead of selling it. That doesn't make me rich, anyone can do it, no matter how poor you are and how much your house is worth because the rent pays your mortgage, it's essentially free. In your scenario, I would have sold the house instead of rented it. Is the government going to dictate how much i can sell it for too?

You need to rethink your logic because it makes zero sense.

 

[Marty Chinn]

No. There is actually many ways you can approach the question. In the first place it is entirely dependent on context and your perspective.

Are they getting non-competitive wages for their position as a result? Are other employers willing to pay them more?

But if you leave a job that pays you well, to get something that will probably pay less because you are offended that the new recruits only earn a few thousand dollars less than you do now as opposed to orders of magnitude, you are a fool. Especially when you aren't even paying their salaries. In the first place, if you are working there and are as happy as you claim you are, being a valuable over-achiever in your firm, your job wouldn't be any less rewarding. Why would it?

Now you're not even talking about the same thing that I replied to. Let me quote it for you again. You said;

I am not saying work of everyone is the same, but any complaint about you not receiving higher pay than others stems from you looking down on other people's work, inherently. In the first place, increasing minimum income to be livable, doesn't stop you to pursue higher pay for yourself. If they feel they should be paid more, they should ask for more. Asking for other people to be paid less to keep their sense of order and hierarchy is a laughable concept and frankly I'd welcome employees fucking off if they feel that way and go somewhere else to be paid much less. The people who stay will still be making more hell, maybe even the janitors of their last workplace will be making more but at least they will be rewarded for their work right? (lol)

You can't make a statement that having a minimum income doesn't stop you from pursuing higher pay in one line but then go and say that you can't think people should earn less. It's nonsense. You either think that work is valued at different levels with different levels of pay or you don't. You can't mix the two up. It's a contradiction to do so.

 

[numble]

anyone can do it, no matter how poor you are and how much your house is worth because the rent pays your mortgage, it's essentially free.

While I can see your angle, the better argument should really not involve a claim that income property is free. Why doesn't everyone just do this then?

A better argument is that ownership entails substantial financial risk--30% of homes with mortgages were underwater in 2012, for instance (that means the owner owes more money to the bank than the house is worth). In some places, more than half of homes with mortgages were underwater:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/24/real_estate/underwater-mortgages/

Other big markets where more than half of borrowers are underwater include Phoenix (55.5%), Atlanta (55.2%), Orlando, Fla. (53.8%), Riverside, Calif. (53.4%), and Sacramento, Calif. (51.2%).

So if you want to force a homeowner into bankruptcy by not allowing the homeowner to rent at market rates, the response should be, "You should have the right to force people into poverty? Fuck off"

 

[cpp_is_king]

While I can see your angle, the better argument should really not involve a claim that income property is free. Why doesn't everyone just do this then?

Some people don't do it because they don't yet own a house. For these people, renting is their only option, and of all the groups of people, they should be the least likely to support something like government dictated rental prices. Because as soon as that happens, there will be no more rental properties on the market. Zero.

Some people don't do it because home is underwater (which is basically what you said about assuming financial risk when purchasing a home).

Some don't do it because they don't have the financial sense to know that it's possible, or they don't have enough confidence in themselves that they can handle the responsibility of being a landlord. That's a lack of education problem, and certainly group A shouldn't be penalized because group B can't manage their money.

Some don't do it because they value stability over earning money, so they don't want to sell their house and move. This is a willful choice though, I'm not going to take someone very seriously when they willfully deny opportunities to make money and then ask for handouts.

I'm sure there's more reasons.

So if you want to force a homeowner into bankruptcy by not allowing the homeowner to rent at market rates, the response should be, "You should have the right to force people into poverty? Fuck off"

While I agree, the response is going to be "If you're rich enough to buy a house, you're not going to feel the pain of losing a little every month by helping someone out". And to that, I don't even have a response, because it's so contrary to everything this country was built on that I have to wonder why people like this even want to live here. If someone seriously wants the entire real estate industry to be state-owned, then I'm genuinely curious what those people actually like about America as it is right now? Are we doing anything right?

 

[shauntu]

Because????
My job demands more responsability, training and experience than that of a construction worker, yet his is much much harder. I think it's ridiculous that he gets paid minimum wage while working an exhausting job while I get paid handsomely for sitting on my ass and making sure my customers are satisfied. These ideas that training, skills, experience or responsabiliy should in any way be correlated to higher compensation are just the result of the megalomania and narcissism that is so prevalent within educated environments. This mentality that it is possible to be superior to others is corrosive and decadent.

The training part is my favourite. I have a degree, but I hate this idea that I'm somehow supposed to be better than someone who's had to start working at a younger age than me because I spent a few years studying something I enjoyed while mostly relaxing and hanging around with friends. Meanwhile, the "inferior" people were already working their asses off to support themselves and the reward they get for being industrious and humble is to be treated like second class citizens by everyone else. The least we could do is reward them accordingly, but no, educated egos are too fragile and addicted to feelings of false superiority to ever allow this to come true.

There is nothing wrong with a hierarchical organization of society, meritocracy should lead to better leadership. But the fact that higher sums of money are even considered as part of the equation is precisely why society is so corrupted. Selfish sharks rise to the top and seek only to maximize profits, instead of maximizing efficiancy and accessibility.

This is why capitalism without heavy regulation will never EVER work. The world will remain a corrupted mess for as long as we allow money and merit to intertwine.

Wow. you put things rather manificently. Having a hierarchical structure not based on or including financial reward while still being present sounds like a pretty cool idea. Compensation is not just financial, but allowing a base financial compensation just sounds like a humane thing to do!

 

[FutureZombie]

The argument that the people who left as "selfish" is kind of a worthless argument. Policies should be set based on reality, not on the way things "should be." I think this case is a really good lesson on that concept.

 

[cpp_is_king]

This is why capitalism without heavy regulation will never EVER work. The world will remain a corrupted mess for as long as we allow money and merit to intertwine.

The top 5 least corrupt countries in the world are Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Here's how they rank on the Index of Economic Freedom. Economic Freedom here is defined as "basic institutions that protect the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests"

Corruption Index: Lower = better (less corrupt)
Freedom Index: Lower = better (more free, less regulation)

Country           Corruption Index     Freedom Index
Denmark                1                    11
New Zealand            2                     3
Finland                3                    19
Sweden                 4                    23
Norway                 5                    27

Now let's pull some numbers from the middle of the corruption index and find their positions on the economic freedom index.

Country      Corruption Rank         Economic Freedom Index
Sierra Leone      119                           147
Tanzania          119                           106
Vietnam           119                           148
Guyana            124                           121
Honduras          126                           112

It seems to me we don't need to make silly assertions like "capitalism without regulation will NEVER work". Because we can simply look at the state of the world today, and see that it is in fact already working.

 

[Version 3.0]

protip: hard workers like to be rewarded

if you reward everyone equally, you'll lose hard workers

it's pretty basic human nature.

True, but how is this relevant? This company is using 70k as a minimum, not "70k for everyone".

 

[soleil]

True, but how is this relevant? This company is using 70k as a minimum, not "70k for everyone".

Because although it's not exactly 70k for everyone, it's apparently still not proportionate:

Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises.

 

[cpp_is_king]

This is why capitalism without heavy regulation will never EVER work. The world will remain a corrupted mess for as long as we allow money and merit to intertwine.

Made a nice little chart for you:

X-axis represents a country's position on the Economic Freedom Index. Lower means a country is more free, or put another way has less regulation.

Y-axis represents a country's position on the corruption index. Lower means a country is less corrupt.

What are your thoughts on this?

Source:
Freedom Index data (2014)

Corruption Index data (2014)

 

[John Dunbar]

I could occupy the home myself, or sell the house instead of rent it.

You living in the home yourself or selling it to someone who perhaps might actually want to live there would be just fine, and if they would just rent it out the same rules would apply to them. You should also be allowed to be the primary resident of only one home, so you would only be able to occupy it yourself if you own no other home.

How would that tax work out in undesirable places to live -- say Detroit -- where you can't even give property away sometimes?

of course any sensible law would take into account properties that can be reasonably established to be unwanted as well as those homes that are deemed unlivable, with highly punitive financial penalties on anyone attempting to falsely label their properties as such.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You living in the home yourself or selling it to someone who perhaps might actually want to live there would be just fine, and if they would just rent it out the same rules would apply to them. You should also be allowed to be the primary resident of only one home, so you would only be able to occupy it yourself if you own no other home.

And if I sold it to that person at the market price, then his mortgage and monthly payment would be such that it would also not be worth it to him to rent out at a reduced government determined price. End result is, there's not going to be any homes for rent, and renters are going to be up shit creek. Bottom line, nobody is going to willfully cause themselves to do something that loses them money. Nobody. Don't even entertain the idea, because it won't happen. Especially when there's another option that allows them recoup their money, or better yet make a profit.

How do you address the other concerns I raised, for example that of a nice house with updated appliances, freshly renovated, in a nice desirable part of town, versus an old dilapidated house in a bad part of town that is a fixer upper? But they are the same square feet, so your law you price them the same.

Essentially you are saying that the government should now handle all aspects of real estate transactions nationwide, including appraisal, regulation, credit checks, and even act as the real estate agent (if prices are not set at a market rate, then there is no need for an agent anymore. You just walk in and put the money down, done).

I really think you should sit down and think about the implications of what you're proposing, because it's both infeasible from a logistical standpoint as well as ridiculous from the standpoint of having a supposedly free country.

 

[Enron]

The CEO values his employees enough that he's paying them a minimum that gives them a higher standard of living. Had people not freaked out about it, he would still be pulling a profit, and probably pioneering a different business model.

Except that he is using 75 or 80% of the company's profits this year to do it. I can't imagine that makes other stakeholders pleased. Not to mention that takes money out of the budget to use on other things.

If you are going to do something like this, at least stop and think what the consequences would be.

 

[John Dunbar]

And if I sold it to that person at the market price, then his mortgage and monthly payment would be such that it would also not be worth it to him to rent out at a reduced government determined price. End result is, there's not going to be any homes for rent, and renters are going to be up shit creek. Bottom line, nobody is going to willfully cause themselves to do something that loses them money. Nobody. Don't even entertain the idea, because it won't happen. Especially when there's another option that allows them recoup their money, or better yet make a profit.

it wouldn't make much sense for them to buy it at market price then, now would it? you are also wrong about there not being homes to rent, because the homes themselves are not going to disappear anywhere. you or whoever is now going to own this particular home will either live there or have to rent it out at a reasonable price or face heavy fines.

i'm not sure what you mean by "nobody is going to willfully cause themselves to do something that loses them money." you are going to lose much more by not renting out your empty house from the penalties you incur.

How do you address the other concerns I raised, for example that of a nice house with updated appliances, freshly renovated, in a nice desirable part of town, versus an old dilapidated house in a bad part of town that is a fixer upper? But they are the same square feet, so your law you price them the same.

Essentially you are saying that the government should now handle all aspects of real estate transactions nationwide, including appraisal, regulation, credit checks, and even act as the real estate agent (if prices are not set at a market rate, then there is no need for an agent anymore. You just walk in and put the money down, done).

I really think you should sit down and think about the implications of what you're proposing, because it's both infeasible from a logistical standpoint as well as ridiculous from the standpoint of having a supposedly free country.

i think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding here. i am speaking strictly of people who own more than one house. if you own only one you can rent it out for whatever you think a fair price is. my problem is entirely with people profiting from extra homes they happen to have lying around.

 

[Marty Chinn]

it wouldn't make much sense for them to buy it at market price then, now would it? you are also wrong about there not being homes to rent, because the homes themselves are not going to disappear anywhere. you or whoever is now going to own this particular home will either live there or have to rent it out at a reasonable price or face heavy fines.

i'm not sure what you mean by "nobody is going to willfully cause themselves to do something that loses them money." you are going to lose much more by not renting out your empty house from the penalties you incur.

What are you talking about? People aren't going to rent out a home at a loss. So if they're not going to rent it, they'll either keep it and live in it, or sell it to someone who is going to buy it. Which means houses won't be available for rent since the end result is someone living in it or selling it.

i think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding here. i am speaking strictly of people who own more than one house. if you own only one you can rent it out for whatever you think a fair price is. my problem is entirely with people profiting from extra homes they happen to have lying around.

This makes no sense. So if you can only own one house and have the ability to rent that house? Meaning what? You can't live in a house because you can only rent out the one you have? What is your problem with someone having a second home and renting it out?

 

[Vermillion]

He didn't give proportional raises to his employees?

Well, that's a problem.

I'd probably leave too.

 

[cpp_is_king]

i think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding here. i am speaking strictly of people who own more than one house. if you own only one you can rent it out for whatever you think a fair price is. my problem is entirely with people profiting from extra homes they happen to have lying around.

And that has nothing to do with the text that you quoted, so I'll repeat it.

How do you address the other concerns I raised, for example that of a nice house with updated appliances, freshly renovated, in a nice desirable part of town, versus an old dilapidated house in a bad part of town that is a fixer upper? But they are the same square feet, so your law you price them the same.

Essentially you are saying that the government should now handle all aspects of real estate transactions nationwide, including appraisal, regulation, credit checks, and even act as the real estate agent (if prices are not set at a market rate, then there is no need for an agent anymore. You just walk in and put the money down, done). And how do you decide who "wins" when 600 people show up with the money? Is it first come first serve? Lottery? Waiting list?

 

[Vermillion]

Why does it matter what your assistant makes as long as you're making enough to sustain your lifestyle and save for the future?

Because he goes to work to earn money. He expects hia compensation for his work to increase with the work he's doing, his ability, and his experience. If he wanted to do a lot of work for no pay increase, there are other ways to do that.

 

[crazygambit]

You would be wrong to feel that way. If you get paid enough to be happy, to get what you want, to do what you want to do, what another person earns is not relevant to your feelings.

But what if your job entails a lot more responsibilities (and associated stress)? A boss that's overqualified to do his junior staff's job might be thinking, why bother? Why don't I just do their job that I can bang out in no time, for close to the same pay?

Who would want to be in a position of responsibility in that scenario?

 

[crazygambit]

Made a nice little chart for you:

X-axis represents a country's position on the Economic Freedom Index. Lower means a country is more free, or put another way has less regulation.

Y-axis represents a country's position on the corruption index. Lower means a country is less corrupt.

What are your thoughts on this?

Source:
Freedom Index data (2014)

Corruption Index data (2014)

It makes complete sense. The more rules you have, the more incentive there is to pay off those that enforce them.

 

[Shouta]

I liked the idea but that guy seriously went about it the wrong way.

 

[Vermillion]

Holy shit at the people that left their business because of it.

Equality?!?!? Not with my money.

Fucking die.

Man, you guys love making this argument. No, it's not about the fact that people are being paid more. People should be paid more to survive, and more at the minimum.

But the employees who do the most work, the highest quality work, and who have the most experience should be appropriately rewarded for their work. You do more, you get more.

It's not "oh no, there are no more people below me," that's a dumbass strawman.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Hope this turns around for him. His brother is a piece of shit.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Hope this turns around for him. His brother is a piece of shit.

Why is his brother a piece of shit? It doesn't state why he's suing him for.

 

[prag16]

It makes complete sense. The more rules you have, the more incentive there is to pay off those that enforce them.

Bingo. It's why the massive and vile lobbying "industry" is able to exist.

Heh. Yet another economics related thread in which hardly anybody knows what the fuck they're talking about, and appear to have 100% of their "knowledge" from skimming Paul Krugman op-eds.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Made a nice little chart for you:

X-axis represents a country's position on the Economic Freedom Index. Lower means a country is more free, or put another way has less regulation.

Y-axis represents a country's position on the corruption index. Lower means a country is less corrupt.

What are your thoughts on this?

Source:
Freedom Index data (2014)

Corruption Index data (2014)

So countries that don't make corruption illegal are less corrupt... If we didn't have laws no one would be a criminal...

You also ignore that corrupt states are exceptionally poor, and the non-corrupt have very strong welfare systems, to keep people out of poverty.

 

[FoxSpirit]

Made a nice little chart for you:

X-axis represents a country's position on the Economic Freedom Index. Lower means a country is more free, or put another way has less regulation.

Y-axis represents a country's position on the corruption index. Lower means a country is less corrupt.

What are your thoughts on this?

Source:
Freedom Index data (2014)

Corruption Index data (2014)

But the freedom index is 0-100 with 100 representing total freedom? Same for Uncorrupted, 0 is totally corrupt and 100 is totally clean? If you inverse indexes, at least stay in the same number space. Or better, use the actual numbers.

Also, looking at the corruption index: the wealthier a country, the less corrupt. That makes sense because if you have money there is less incentive to take bribes. In return, if you have money, you have less incentives to go for trade regulations since it seems it's working well anyways and trade always pushes for more freeedom.

Of course, then trade tries to go for TTIP. Not funny trade, not funny.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Made a nice little chart for you:

X-axis represents a country's position on the Economic Freedom Index. Lower means a country is more free, or put another way has less regulation.

Y-axis represents a country's position on the corruption index. Lower means a country is less corrupt.

What are your thoughts on this?

Source:
Freedom Index data (2014)

Corruption Index data (2014)

Did you reverse the numbers on the "Freedom Index" there? Because the actual Freedom Index, including the numbers you've linked, is higher numbers being "more free". So unless you've inverted the scale, then what your graph is actually proving is that "more free" means "more corrupt". Nevermind, because the corruption numbers are also backwards too.

But I have to think you've done something to those numbers, since both the "Freedom Index" and the corruption figures are on a 0-100 scale and yet you've got them represented as 0-200 for each, with scores over 100 on both sides.

Really, these are not great figures to compare. The Heritage Foundation is not exactly a reputable source on what makes a country free, and the corruption index doesn't register actual corruption, but public perception of how corrupt the government is.

 

[cpp_is_king]

But the freedom index is 0-100 with 100 representing total freedom? Same for Uncorrupted, 0 is totally corrupt and 100 is totally clean? If you inverse indexes, at least stay in the same number space. Or better, use the actual numbers.

Also, looking at the corruption index: the wealthier a country, the less corrupt. That makes sense because if you have money there is less incentive to take bribes. In return, if you have money, you have less incentives to go for trade regulations since it seems it's working well anyways and trade always pushes for more freeedom.

Of course, then trade tries to go for TTIP. Not funny trade, not funny.

The numbers I've used for the X and Y axes are the *ranking* of countries on the 2 indices. For the corruption index, the country ranked #1 has the least corruption, and for the Economic Freedom Index, the country ranked #1 is the most economically free. So if economic freedom and non-corruption were perfectly correlated, you would expect to see the line x=y plotted on the graph.

I didn't use the actual index values, because they are not on the same scale (I mean they are, 0-100, but the formulas are difference, so it kind of makes them non-comparable). The ranking though is on the same scale (namely 1 - however many countries were measured). The set of countries were not identical, however. In some cases a country would be on one index but not the other. Those countries were removed from this graph.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Really, these are not great figures to compare. The Heritage Foundation is not exactly a reputable source on what makes a country free, and the corruption index doesn't register actual corruption, but public perception of how corrupt the government is.

It's at least better than making stuff up like you have a degree in economics. Not talking about you, but just the general feeling I get from reading this thread. If you have a suggestion for better numbers, point me to the data and I will make a nice chart out of it. In any case, I think this data is still pretty meaningful. Of course it could be better, but if economics were an exact science we wouldn't be having this discussion (actually who am I kidding, lots of sciences are exact and people still dispute them)

 

[cpp_is_king]

So countries that don't make corruption illegal are less corrupt... If we didn't have laws no one would be a criminal...

You also ignore that corrupt states are exceptionally poor, and the non-corrupt have very strong welfare systems, to keep people out of poverty.

If the non-corrupt have very strong welfare systems, then we're already doing pretty good right? US is ranked #17 in the world for being non-corrupt.

In any case, I'm not ignoring anything. I'm posting this to refute the following claim:

This is why capitalism without heavy regulation will never EVER work. The world will remain a corrupted mess for as long as we allow money and merit to intertwine.

Which is definitively false, as you can see from the graph.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Welp

http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/company-that-promised-70000-minimum-wage-reaps-rewards/

Company that promised $70,000 minimum wage reaps rewards

But the CEO is living modestly.

A Seattle-based credit-card processing company made headlines in April when the CEO announced that it would raise the minimum salary for all employees to $70,000 over the next three years. Now, several months into the experiment, that company is thriving.

Dan Price, the CEO of Gravity Payments, told Inc. in a recent article that Gravity’s profits have doubled, and revenues are growing at twice their previous rate since he made the announcement in April.

Price, who decided to take a major personal paycut (from $1.3 million to $70,000) and mortgage two houses to invest another $3 million of his own money into the company in addition to raising the minimum salary of his 120-person staff, was inspired to make the move by a previous pay experiment.

In 2012, Price raised company salaries 20% after a conversation with an entry-level employee pushed him to question whether his employees were being sufficiently compensated. In 2013, he did it again. Both years, profits grew, and productivity rose 30% to 40%.

Price told Inc. that the April announcement has energized the company.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Welp

http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/company-that-promised-70000-minimum-wage-reaps-rewards/

Company that promised $70,000 minimum wage reaps rewards

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1130054

 

[PetriP-TNT]

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1130054

Dang, searched for 70k

 

[neurosisxeno]

Welp

http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/company-that-promised-70000-minimum-wage-reaps-rewards/

Company that promised $70,000 minimum wage reaps rewards

It's almost like positive reinforcement works in the labor force.

 

[Keasar]

So reading through the OP news, the problem wasn't that it wasn't sustainable, it was that everyone else just decided to act like assholes about it?

Glad to see that it worked out for them in the end.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Decent and quick read on our welfare spending, and about where we are effective. https://www.aei.org/publication/us-second-biggest-welfare-state-world-whos/

 

[KodaRuss]

It's almost like positive reinforcement works in the labor force.

Positive reinforcement would mean getting a raise for doing something good for the company or meeting your goals.

It didnt matter if you were good at your job or not you were getting at least 70k.

 

[rjinaz]

Great to see. So many Negative Nancys posted in this thread. I suspect most were just jealous.

 

[Vicetrailia]

No way if I was a marketing manager in a stressful position would I want to be a fast food worker for the same money. After monetary needs are met (heck even when I'm trying to gain them) I want a job that's in the cut so I don't feel like every shift is a waste of time. But that's just me I suppose.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Glad to see this is working out for the company. It would be nice to see more companies follow suit.

 

[Sanke__]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Seriously
WTF
This is the most depressing story I have read in a long time

 

[Angelus Errare]

Reality shows that paying your employees a decent salary has a positive effect.

Shocking. Truly.

 

[rjinaz]

Seriously
WTF
This is the most depressing story I have read in a long time

Well the good news is, this is an old thread and things have turned around for him. So yay!

 

[rjinaz]

Reality shows that paying your employees a decent salary has a positive effect.

Shocking. Truly.

I actually had a boss rationalize away giving employees well overdue raises because they are always just going to want more anyway. I didn't stay there long after that.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I actually had a boss rationalize away giving employees well overdue raises because they are always just going to want more anyway. I didn't stay there long after that.

Yeesh, sounds like an asshole of the highest order.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Given we have a new thread for the new news, feel free to continue discussion there:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1130054