81–90 of 694 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What incentive would anyone have in making more then 400K a year if you were going to be taxed at 90%?
You get to keep 10%. Or you can give the money to charities.
And then Kodak died. How many high paid janitors do they have in their upstate NY headquarters now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What incentive would anyone have in making more then 400K a year if you were going to be taxed at 90%?
Why would anyone need more than 400k a year for himself in the first place though ?
The article fails to mention Amazon, which does still have plenty of non-outsourced blue collar jobs. I doubt there is a lot of the kind of upward mobility at amazon for them that there was for the Kodak janitor in the 80s, though.
Keep in mind, though, that Amazon is doing everything it can to automate most of those blue collar jobs (warehouse robots, delivery drones, etc.). That workforce has a very limited shelf life.
Devil's advocate: there is an upside here. Come economic downturns, companies can mitigate layoffs by choosing not to renew contracts. It means that those who planned for stability (full time employees) are more likely to get it, e.g., start a family, take out a mortgage, etc. Those expecting turbulence can avoid long-term commitments.
Entirely irrelevant to the content of the article, but is there a solution to the problematic interaction between sticky headers and full-page scrolling? At least in Firefox, if you press Space or PageDown (to scroll down a "page"), on the linked article, you'll lose several lines of the text, as they're obscured by the header. Illustrating: Chrome isn't afflicted by this (on the linked article), due to the fact that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone need more than 400k a year for himself in the first place though ?
That's like if you had two cars and the government took one of them. "What do you need two cars for?"
It sounds like the real reason for inequality is that the pay for "janitorial work" has simply decreased. The article makes a point to say that the pay is the same, accounting for inflation, but it's disingenuous not to highlight total comp, which Ramos had significantly less of than Evans.
The reason for inequality is that people are not equal. The work they do produce is not equal in value. More people can do a janitor's job, and/or do without a janitor, so the value of a janitor's work is less. More supply, elastic demand, means lower price point. Through technology, some people are able to produce much more than others, so inequality is inevitable unless there is a balancing force (aka taxation).
All the things every country in the world does except one.
Gail Evans worked as a janitor at Kodak in the 1980s. "She received more than four weeks of paid vacation per year, reimbursement of some tuition costs to go to college part time, and a bonus payment every March... A manager learned that Ms. Evans was taking computer classes while she was working as a janitor and asked her to teach some other employees how to use spreadsheet software to track inventory... Less than a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone need more than 400k a year for himself in the first place though ?
That's like if you had two cars and the government took one of them. "What do you need two cars for?"
In other words, nothing like that.