Chicago inacts Living Wage ordinance

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The former. I hate attempts at social engineering to punish only one narrowly defined group of people (in this case 'sports team owners') for issues unrelated to how much income them make (taxes account for that), in order to achieve increased revenue.

Everyone benefits, everyone should pay. Shouldn't single out some group and say "Hey, we don't like that you are making so much by doing X, so we want you to pay for this thing". If you want to 'punish sports owners' raise the tax rate on the top percentile.

Read my above post. But it's not about punishing the people that generate the wealth. They should reap (some) rewards for generating that wealth. It's integral to our economy... to a point. However, hoarding that wealth is counter-productive to our society.

As I said, it's not about punishing those people, it's about using that wealth for more productive purposes. How much money does one person need? Honestly. How much is enough? When does being successful and making a good living (even a great living) just turn into excess and greed? Sure, it takes greed to motivate some people, but what good does it do to have a select few hoarding so much wealth?

How much more productive would our society be if that money was training hundreds of thousands (or millions) of other people to produce capital?


It's not about punishing the people that generate wealth. It's about giving other people the opportunity the ability to generate capital so that they can put it back into the economy... which, in turn, will create a snowball effect.

Excessive wealth and concentrations of wealth is bad for the economy. Having more people that are able to generate capital (skilled workers, professionals, etc) is what we should be moving towards.

The only ideology you should be concerned about is survival. Our survival as a nation, as a culture, and are a people. If our economy is weak, we will slowly die. Allowing people to hoard wealth, while at the same time, not allowing people the ample opportunity to succeed sets up the situation where our economy is weaker than it could be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When looking at society as a whole, what professions receive what kind of pay, it's important to talk about what our values are and how we want to go about encouraging and reinforcing those values.

And our values are reflected by what we pay for. The market is stunningly effective in showing what our actual values are compared to the BS about what talking heads say they are.

let the public (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) reap the rewards. Instead of letting a corporate entity take our money and profit from provide entertainment (using public resources), let them make a significant amount of money, but have the rest get put back into education and/or health care.

Why should we single out one unliked group (and who knows how unliked they really are) to provide a service everyone should be contributing towards? Why not just tell the computer makers that they are making too much and they should fund public education? What about steel mill owners? Coal mining outfits? Why should sports owners get the brunt?

It is not government regulation of the economy.

Only if you close your eyes and don't see.

Its social engineering (ie, government regulation of the economy) to punish one distinct group of people simply because we don't like them making money on games.

Hell, I say if they are able to make all that cash, more power to 'em. You want to fund education, make everyone pay. Don't penalize people simply because you don't like them. I'd strongly, strongly be against an idea to make a certain industry pay for some social good unrelated to any consequences of their actions (and public education does not suffer because there are pro sports around).

[Arrian]

Taxation can also be social engineering.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Imran: How is it penalizing them?

The owners of professional sports franchises (even with the government taking a huge cut of revenue), will still have incomes in the top 99.9 percentile of income earners in the world.

Your definition of punishment is strange.

And explain to me how I am "penalizing" them because I don't like them? That is a complete strawman. This is about generating revenue to make our economy more productive. In fact, I praise the ability of owners to produce a product that generates so much revenue. It is an incredible asset that the public should take advantage of.

And when dealing with such assets, you need to treat everyone differently (i.e. single them out). Not all industries are the same. Sports is a unique aspect of our economy. So is health care, pharmaceuticals, electronics, etc... you cannot have a general policy for each industry. You need to treat them differently.

You seem to have a problem understanding how the sports' owners make their money. They are using public resources to make their money. As I see it, the public has every right to decide how much money it wants to use for education (from that revenue).

Then, let the market sort out the other factors: ticket prices, salaries, etc.

It is not government regulation of the economy (to the extent the government would be interfering with market forces).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Taxation can also be social engineering.

-Arrian

Indeed, and I do dislike most cases of social engineeing through the tax code. I can understand (and support) why we tax more for higher wage levels, but that isn't engineering, because the goal isn't to make people stop earning more. I don't like tax breaks for religion and particular forms of corporate welfare, as well as plenty of other taxes (or tax breaks) designed to encourage people to do, or stop doing, something.

Taxes meant to pay for harm committed, OTOH, is fine. If an extra tax on cigarettes went towards medical bills the state has to incur partially based on smoking related illness, then that's fine.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian
Taxation can also be social engineering.

RAISING YOUR CHILDREN CAN ALSO BE SOCIAL ENGINEERING

[Sava]

Well, hopefully intelligent people who are less blinded by ideology and more open to pragmatic policies will read my posts and understand what I'm saying and trying to accomplish.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
Imran: How is it penalizing them?

The owners of professional sports franchises (even with the government taking a huge cut of revenue), will still have incomes in the top 99.9 percentile of income earners in the world.

You aren't serious right? Taking more money simply because they make what you consider to be too much = penalty. You've made them pay extra based on their industry committing the offense of making too much.

And explain to me how I am "penalizing" them because I don't like them? That is a complete strawman. This is about generating revenue to make our economy more productive. In fact, I praise the ability of owners to produce a product that generates so much revenue. It is an incredible asset that the public should take advantage of.

Well that's the only explination really, because you'd singled them out. Either you don't like them, or you don't like the money they make, even though other industries make just as much money and profit.

You seem to have a problem understanding how the sports' owners make their money. They are using public resources to make their money. As I see it, the public has every right to decide how much money it wants to use for education (from that revenue).

And they pay for those public resources. So what's the problem? The fact that idiots are giving away their resources is their fault. If they wanted to get more revenue from them, they could. But they don't, and build stadiums for them. That's the voters and the mayors' faults.

As far as the public airwaves, you charge everyone the same per unit. I'm totally opposed to charging some people more simply because they make more money from the airwave lease. Good for them if they do. If you want more money from the airwaves, raise prices for everyone.

It is not government regulation of the economy (to the extent the government would be interfering with market forces).

Every government regulation pertaining to the economy (and most that don't) have an effect on the market.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You aren't serious right? Taking more money simply because they make what you consider to be too much = penalty. You've made them pay extra based on their industry committing the offense of making too much.



Well that's the only explination really, because you'd singled them out. Either you don't like them, or you don't like the money they make, even though other industries make just as much money and profit.

Well, apparantly you need to read my earlier posts again.

I'll bold it this time so you can more easily comprehend my point.

I view professional sports as an incredible revenue generating asset capable of contributing much more to the public good (specifically funds for education) then they currently do. I am "singling them out" because they use public resources to generate their revenue (and the other reasons I listed), not because I "don't like them".

Hopefully this will clear things up. But I've found that when people fail to comprehend things after a few posts, repeating my arguments generally fails. Ignorance and a lack of intelligence is generally to blame.

And they pay for those public resources. So what's the problem? The fact that idiots are giving away their resources is their fault. If they wanted to get more revenue from them, they could. But they don't, and build stadiums for them. That's the voters and the mayors' faults.

Exactly. And the public has the ability to get more from the owners, or else, take away those resources and the ability for the owners to generate that revenue. That is what this discussion is all about.

As far as the public airwaves, you charge everyone the same per unit. I'm totally opposed to charging some people more simply because they make more money from the airwave lease. Good for them if they do. If you want more money from the airwaves, raise prices for everyone.

That is simply retarded. You cannot have the same policy for everyone (I'm speaking in general, not necessarily for leasing media airtime). Different industries have different earning potentials, different morals implications (as it pertains to environmental, social and political impact), and different demands. To just have a general policy, to treat everyone the same, is not only stupid, it would be counter-productive to the economy because it would hurt some industries and not provide enough boost to others.

Every government regulation pertaining to the economy (and most that don't) have an effect on the market.

REALLY??!

Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.

[Sava]

Does someone with a triple digit IQ want to discuss this with me?

[Arrian]

Now, now. You're not really any fun when you act all arrogant.

-Arrian

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Sava
Does someone with a triple digit IQ want to discuss this with me?

Do the digits after the decimal point count?

[hexagonian]

What's ironic is that the idiotic aldermen who just voted for this issue also just voted themselves a raise, pushing them above 100K now.

This crap about the need for Walmart to have a minimum wage of $13 is just that, crap...all for just standing around and pointing out where aisle 3 is located.

If a job isn't providing enough money for you, do what I do...work 2 jobs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I view professional sports as an incredible revenue generating asset capable of contributing much more to the public good (specifically funds for education) then they currently do. I am "singling them out" because they use public resources to generate their revenue (and the other reasons I listed), not because I "don't like them".

And they already PAY for those public resources! What, you want to penalize them because you don't think the public representatives got 'enough'?

What about businesses that get tax breaks? Isn't that using public resources to gain their profits? So, yeah, what don't you like about pro sports to make them singled out?

And the public has the ability to get more from the owners, or else, take away those resources and the ability for the owners to generate that revenue.

And they didn't when they had the chance, and currently are not doing so. Blame the people who run the cities.

You cannot have the same policy for everyone (I'm speaking in general, not necessarily for leasing media airtime). Different industries have different earning potentials, different morals implications (as it pertains to environmental, social and political impact), and different demands.

Of course you can. In the case of media airtime. You have a different earning potential? Deal with it. Different moral implication? Whose morals win out? Someone wants to give a lease break to anti-abortion groups... should it allowed, or should we have the same policy for everyone?

It's like if a business was selling Coke and charged people based on how thirsty they looked. Would that be alright? So why is governmental price discrimination based on how much you can pony up alright?

Does someone with a triple digit IQ want to discuss this with me?

If you exclude yourself from the debate, its going to end pretty quick .

[Lancer]

Originally posted by hexagonian
What's ironic is that the idiotic aldermen who just voted for this issue also just voted themselves a raise, pushing them above 100K now.

This crap about the need for Walmart to have a minimum wage of $13 is just that, crap...all for just standing around and pointing out where aisle 3 is located.

If a job isn't providing enough money for you, do what I do...work 2 jobs.