Skip to main content

View Diary: The goal IS to reduce the standard of living (386 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •   no (4.00)
    no, no it shouldn't. it is odd that your comment refers to the 'free market' when it would abolish it.
    a free market is free to set prices for goods and services. capping everyone's salary at $200k a year is 1) bad economics 2) bad sociology.

    lets put aside for the moment that the truly wealthy don't sell their time to get by in the world, they invest. and as your suggestion ignores that rather huge part of the economy it would be entirely ineffective towards what i presume your aim to be. ignoring that...

    i want my pediatric neurosurgeon to make a shitload of money. i do not want her going off to work in another country where she will be fairly compensated because some authoritarian regime has decided to limit salaries in the U.S.

    we should have quality health care for everyone . ability to pay should not be a factor in the quality of medical care anyone receives.

    public schools should be temples to the best practices in education. good teachers should earn six figure salaries. every school child should be well equipped (including well fed). we must do away with savage inequalities.

    but i want my neurosurgeon to make a shitload of money, and your suggestion would destroy the US - not just the economy, but the US. perhaps you've heard of a lil place called the USSR that tried an experiment somewhat like you're suggesting...

    •  Your neurosurgeon can train new surgeons (none)
      to his high standards.

      He can then put them on his payroll.

      Then more high quality surgeons will be available to treat even more patients.

      He can then bring home more than $200,000 a year.


      If I have to go overseas for medical care, I will have a choice of where I go. I may pick a German surgeon instead.

      Medical providers either have to work in the United States or compete against surgeons in countries like India or China.

      •  Your're still wrong (none)
        1. not every one can teach - just try it some time.
        2. If ery job is capped at $200,000 I'm gonna get the easiest job for my $200,00 income - I'm no fool.
        3. If everyone earns $200,000 all prices will go up to ensure that they reflect the fact that people make $200,000 - evrey one looks for profit.
        •  Yes, wrong.... (none)
          Take home pay should be limited to $200,000 a year based on how many ice cream cones you can eat. Makes as much sense. Reality check time...

          On Perlstein and beautiful irony: Poynter

          4/20/2004 10:14:11 AM


          Inside the Dow Jones annual meeting on Wednesday, Pulitzer-Prize winning Wall Street Journal reporters will stand up and speak to directors and shareholders about the damaging effects that proposed healthcare cuts and pay limits will have on quality at the Journal. Dozens of other Journal and Dow Jones employees will attend the meeting to support those speeches. (The Journal is Dow Jones's flagship publication.)

          •  Creating jobs high paying jobs is more (none)
            beneficial to society than eating ice cream.

            Want more money? Create more high paying market sector jobs!

            I am simply proposing to measure a very useful quality such as middle class job creation and allow it to be rewarded.

            I don't care to continue to reward greedy people for laying off Americans and for jacking up my bills.

        •  yeah, this sounds like free market communism to me (none)
          with the worst of both systems.


        •  You will find that few jobs paying (none)
          $200,000 are easy.

          If you know about any easy $200,000 jobs, please post the details below.

          People making more than $200,000 tend to have specific skills enabling them to earn such large sums. They will generally have a hard time switching to something else that still pays $200,000.

          Furthermore, I don't think people with the easiest $200,000 jobs will be inclined to give them up.

      •  wtf (none)
        if you have to go overseas for medical care you'll have a choice of where you'll go?

        well that's just fucking great for you, now isn't it.

        1. how about those of us without the financial resources to afford international airfare? and hotel and skilled rehab stays? and the fees of foreign doctors and hospitals (i hear, from pastordan among others, that they can be quite expensive)??

        2. how about those of us who didn't do the requisite pre-planning for our emergency trauma surgeries?

        3. how about those of us who are stuck in this country (see 1) and therefore have to fight behemoth HMO's - who have a fiduciary obligation to only care about profits - every god damn day in order to survive? fuck us huh?

        what unabashed self-ishness. what arrogance. oh, it's ok cus you can go to Germany.

        by the way, doctors at teaching hospitals do teach. they teach med students, they teach residents, and they teach fellows. in your 'plan' who exactly gets credit for training the fourth year med student during clinical rotations? the junior resident? the senior resident? the attending? do they all divy up the incentive? or do they all get the full bonus?

        and my attending neurosurgeon, btw, wouldn't be employing the residents or fellows she trains. they'd be working for the hospital - or the hospital's physician orginization. does the CEO of the hospital of the PO then get credit for the work of my attending neurosurgeon under your 'plan'?

        •  You have to truly CREATE a JOB (none)
          needed and supported by the market and not simply manage or transfer an old job or simply teach somebody how to do a job.

          Setting up Dr. Bob's Emergency Trauma Center would be considered a transfer.

          Teaching a novel surgical technique for a previously untreatable condition and then hiring people to perform it would qualify.

          Scams will trigger IRS penalties and interest charges and possible jail time.

          Most hospitals receive so much government money that they shouldn't qualify as market based entities.

          Also if courts are used to collect past due bills, that income would not count proportionately towards the $40,000 requirement.

          Lifting an individual's income above $40,000 for the first time would be an important test. Don't fire an old employee making $50,000 because that would then simply be a job transfer.

          If you trained me to be a fine Afghan cuisine chef and paid me at least $40,000 a year you would be on your way. There are no Afghan restaurants in my area and I haven't made $40,000 a year for more years than I care to admit.

          If you opened SV Breweries with me and we had five people making more than $40,000 a year, we could agree to let you claim all five.

          Basically, I am proposing a job creation tax credit. If you feel that is too difficult, feel free to stick with a $200,000 a year limit.

    •  asdf (none)
      I want my musicians to make a shitload of money because everyday when they sit down to write or play I want them making the best damn music money can buy.

      That doesn't feel like such a solid argument when directed at musicians though.

      I would like my pediatric nuerosurgeon to care about children and take it as a privilege to do a job that can profoundly and positively effect their lives. I also want my pediatric neurosurgeon to have a deep dedication to the arts of surgery and medicine. For their hard work and many years of training I expect them to have a very comfortable lifestyle, but that shouldn't be the reason they entered the profession.

      Tracking energy and transportation news.

      by joel3000 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:47:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  dude (none)
      what are you doing arguing for the free market when you have a political compass score of -7.13, -6.92?!?

      just joking :).  it just reinforces my idea that the political compass quiz is not measuring what it claims to meaure. nice post i give you a 4!

      "Religion ... it's the crystal meth of the masses." - Salman Rushdie

      by colorless green ideas on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:52:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  heh. (none)
        yea, can i tell you a secret? this thread actually reminded me i wanted to put those numbers in my post.

        i'm a democratic socialist. i think that's rather different than capping everyone's incoming at $200k.

        i think the best solution we have to the economic and sociological questions humanity faces is a democratically regulated free market. i think excellent universal education is the bedrock upon which sound democracies are built and sustained.

        do i like that society values (as measured by income) rap more than it values physics? or football more than medicine? nope. but the only way to change it is to truly educate the populace.

        •  i scored a (-6.00, -7.33) (none)
          and i consider myself a free-market liberal, in the vein of RFK jr, so what does that mean?? i guess it means that just because many on the radical right have defined "free market" as no government intervention at all (except of course, property rights, corporate licences, patent, trademark, copyright, huge military, etc), doesn't mean we have to accept their definition.

          "Religion ... it's the crystal meth of the masses." - Salman Rushdie

          by colorless green ideas on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:51:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Somebody in the bottom left corner is a... (none)
        ...Liberal Libertarian.  Of course they would be for the free market (although they would also be for fairly high taxes and a strong social net).
        •  i disagree (none)
          according to their "analysis" a person in the lower left quadrant would have the same economic views as Stalin, matched with libertarian social views.  

          Which of course is absurd, since there are really no questions that talk about state ownership of industry, or a "command economy", and only one that talks about private property (in regards to ownership own land). Their analysis positively states that there is a "commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left", and that "further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer...".

          So, their scale suggest that left vs. right is a completely "controlled market" vs. a completely "free market", thus they suggest that their questions will map a persons beliefs according to this scale, yet they don't even ask questions that reflect the extremes of the scale, so you have free-market liberals showing up economically equivalent to Stalin!

          I'll try to illustrate my criticism more explicitly. There are many economic questions that ask us about corporations, here is an example:

          "Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation."

          An "Agree" registers a negative (left) economic score and a "Disgree" registers a positive (right) economic score.

          So how does this question have nothing to do with "left" or "right" as defined by them?

          In communism, there need not be regulation, because the government is the only economic producer/supplier.  The only regulation is military, and police in order to prevent people from illegaly entering the market.

          In a so-called "free market" absent of any government regulation whatsoever, a "corporation" would not exist: a corporation is a fictitious entity--a government sanction, protected, and often subsidized regulation.

          So their bounds already smaller that the scale they present, and their questions make certain assumptions that include government regulations that are not calculated in their results.

          I could go on like this for hours.

          "Religion ... it's the crystal meth of the masses." - Salman Rushdie

          by colorless green ideas on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:23:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  not to mention, even that the military (none)
           is a huge government imposition on the economy, and nearly all the military related questions register as "authoritarian" on the social scale.

          what this quiz does is measure the magnitude of economic and social political values as best relating to a generalized representation contemporary political economies of the highly developed nations (but mainly the US and UK), all of which are mixed economies, and the standard left/right coalitions that exist within them.  They really blow it when they attempt to bring in historical figures, and to define the scale in abstract terms.

          "Religion ... it's the crystal meth of the masses." - Salman Rushdie

          by colorless green ideas on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:35:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I want more pediatric surgeons. (none)
      If medical schools admitted all qualified candidates, we would have more doctors and surgeons and perhaps the so-called free market would adjust the salaries. I find it interesting that many MDs support the concept of free markets when the number of doctors is kept artificially low.

      Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      by slatsg on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:33:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site