# "It’s Time for Major Wealth Redistribution — Yes, I Mean It."

#### Treedbear

##### Veteran Member
...
Perhaps minimum wages tied to local cost of living. When Boeing expanded to the east cost the local wages for engineers were a lot lower than Seattle, but the local cost of living was a lot lower. People who transferred got a boost in income.

The current push for a $15 min wage nationally does not take into account local conditions. Should a grocery store pay a min living wage for a part time high school student? ... Would a national$15 min wage apply to grocery store clerks? I think there are certain types and sizes of business it applies to. Like minimum $500K per year in government contracts and/or interstate commerce. So maybe not to your local maid service and restaurant worker. Republicans say it would drive MacDonald's out of business or raise the price of burgers to$25. On the other hand some of that business might go to the local guy running the corner diner.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
Dude! You didn't say HFT's activities do not benefit society. You said Wall St. traders' activities do not benefit society. If you meant your accusation only to be about HFT, you should have said HFT's activities do not benefit society.

Oh my. If you don't understand the qualitative difference between trading a stock (selling it hours, seconds, or even milliseconds after you buy it) and long-term buy-and-hold investment, this is going to be hard; but I will try.

And the second sentence above is floundering pedantry. If I meant investment, I would have written "investment." Isn't it best to give fellow TFTers the benefit of the doubt? Or does it amuse to misconstrue others' remarks into the worst possible light?

I gave HFT as just one example of Wall St "hyper-efficiency", which in turn is just one area where Wall St. activities are counter-productive for society, but since you're eager to defend HFT we'll stick with that.

But that said, yes, of course HFT benefits society. Do you know what a "bid-ask spread" is?

I've already pointed out the benefits of "specialist" traders. Did you even read my post? And I asked rhetorically why brokers offer zero-commission services. Did you think about that? If you honestly believe HF traders "discover" a price a millisecond earlier, you'll have to explain how that helps me. It takes me much more than a millisecond to click on the boxes when I'm making a trade.

Is the incremental amount of bid-ask-spread reduction from those few milliseconds large enough to justify paying $300 million for it? I don't know. Frankly, I doubt it. Let's stop right here. Do you think the firm that spent$300 million spent it stupidly? Answer Yes or No, so we can move on. Spoiler:

They wouldn't have spent it if they didn't already know they could recover the money and more. Duh.

Whether they spent it wisely or not, the fact that they did should be meaningful. Where do you think the $300 million in revenue needed to recover this cost was supposed to come from? Make a serious answer, please, to prove you're serious. (c) can be described as "stealing", This business of leapfrogging you describe sounds like a form of insider-trading, which means it's probably already illegal or would be but for some loophole in the regulatory wording. Then again, maybe there's an innocent explanation for it that someone more knowledgeable than you or I would be able to provide. Wrong again. The "leapfrogging" is not a man-in-the-middle attack (although it almost sounds that way). The cable transmits information already available to brokers in Chicago, but sending it to New York faster than the other guys did. (Recall the legend that the Rothschilds used carrier pigeons to send news of the Battle of Waterloo hours before anyone else. The cable shaved off milliseconds instead of hours. Note that there already was adequate capacity; tunnels were literally dug out to keep the cable almost perfectly straight and shave off microseconds!) I am NOT complaining about the cost of the cable. That's just symbolic of how valuable such fast data was. And, since trading is a constant-sum "game", for an HFT firm to get a Million$ profit — or a Billion $— someone else would have to lose that money. Now that might be a serious issue. A lot of things that aren't harmful in isolation can start to do damage when they grow to become a significant fraction of market volume; buying on margin and short-selling are in that category too. Are you backing away from your previous misconception? Or did you agree with me all along? But Canada put a tax on HFT a few years ago and their bid-ask spreads rose 9%. That's not doing a favor either to regular investors or to the economy. The spread rose 9%, not the price. In other words, I might pay$90.17 for a share that otherwise might have cost $90.16. I could live with that. I'm curious what material effect you think that would have on the economy. Reduction in the demand among traders for tranquilizers? #### Bomb#20 ##### Contributor Why do you believe that? Of course their activities benefit society. Deployment of resources away from immediate consumption in favor of increasing productive capacity and thus of increasing long-term consumption happens because Wall St. traders make it happen. I agree that Wall Street traders may benefit society, but I think their contributions are highly over-rated. Trading equity does not necessarily increase productive capacity either directly or indirectly. "Necessarily"? Sure, some individual trade may well not do any good; but that isn't the issue. Trading equity in aggregate increases productive capacity. If there weren't a secondary market where you can get your money out of an investment when your situation changes and you find you need it, people would be far more reluctant to invest in production in the first place. Investors wouldn't buy into IPOs except with money they were sure they wouldn't need for years. We'd revert back to the 1700s, when to start any major undertaking you needed an angel investor to back it. Second, the decision to save (i.e. deploy resources away from immediate consumption) are usually made for reasons independent of the stock market. To some extent, yes; but a stock market makes it a lot easier. And since it offers better returns than the primary alternative -- lending your money to a bank -- it changes the balance of considerations that go into the decision. I.e., people will save more money if they're getting 6% returns than if they're getting 0.6%. #### DBT ##### Contributor Same question I always ask. Sounds good, how exactly do you enact it and who sets how it is redistributed. A worse case scenario was the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The Russian and Chinese communist attempts at forcing an equality failed catastrophically. Large scale famine in both cases. In practcal terms what is a quantifiable definition of redistribution? What is the endpoint? Without tat it will just be anoter slippery slope into the unknown. The problem with progressives is they are never able to precisly articulate details. It ends up being political sound bites and propaganda. No mystery at all. Basically fairer pay scales and social security systems in place (leave no one too far behind). Scandinavia, Norway, Finland, etc, reportedly the happiest people on Earth. There is an idea that I bumped into recently, that coordinated market economies like the Scandinavian countries are actually only able to afford their social systems because there are liberal economies like the USA that are doing all the "hard" innovations on their behalf. It's much easier being a follower than a leader. If the United States were to enact same kind of programs, it would crash not only the economic output of Americans, but also those in the countries that are piggy-backing on its success. Things were better for workers decades ago, except maybe those on minimum wage, yet the US economy did not crash, the world did not fall apart because many workers enjoyed relatively better pay and conditions. The stagnation and decline in income for workers in the last four decades even while the top few percent enjoy ever increasing wealth is clearly not a necessary condition for a healthy economy or society. #### Swammerdami ##### Squadron Leader Staff member My last post was almost insulting. I apologize to everyone especially Bomb#20. I feel that my intelligence is insulted and respond in kind, but escalating steeply and irrationally. I'm not much better even when I'm at my best, but I'm not at my best right now. We have sharp personal worries here and I have hardly been able to sleep at all for the past three days. If the Mods think it best, please feel free to suspend my account for a week or two. #### Bomb#20 ##### Contributor Oh my. If you don't understand the qualitative difference between trading a stock (selling it hours, seconds, or even milliseconds after you buy it) and long-term buy-and-hold investment, this is going to be hard; but I will try. And the second sentence above is floundering pedantry. If I meant investment, I would have written "investment." Isn't it best to give fellow TFTers the benefit of the doubt? Or does it amuse to misconstrue others' remarks into the worst possible light? ...says the guy who just equivocated between "investment" and "long-term buy-and-hold investment" in order to paint my remarks in the worst light. A traditional brokerage that buys a supply of a stock in order to make a market in it for filling the day's anticipated orders is investing in that company too, even if it sells it hours after it buys it. The difference between trading and investing is much like the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours -- it's the same phenomenon, but looked at either instantaneously or integrated over time. But that said, yes, of course HFT benefits society. Do you know what a "bid-ask spread" is? I've already pointed out the benefits of "specialist" traders. Did you even read my post? Yes. What, are you claiming that "specialist" traders help reduce bid-ask spreads but HFTs don't? What evidence do you have for that? And I asked rhetorically why brokers offer zero-commission services. Did you think about that? Um, in order to attract customers away from other brokers? This is not rocket science. (Not that the traditional brokers are charging high commissions any more. Ain't competition wonderful?) If you mean, where are they making their money, presumably they're getting a cut of the bid-ask spread. If you honestly believe HF traders "discover" a price a millisecond earlier, you'll have to explain how that helps me. It takes me much more than a millisecond to click on the boxes when I'm making a trade. Sure thing: the same way it helps you when a HF trader offers his secretary a dental package. It's simply one more arena of competition. Discovering a price a millisecond earlier lets a broker identify arbitrage opportunities between (say) New York and Chicago a few milliseconds before his competitor. If the broker can make money on a risk-free arbitrage he can afford to cut commissions; and he'll do it to keep you from taking your business to his competitor. Competition between sellers of the same service is good for customers. Is the incremental amount of bid-ask-spread reduction from those few milliseconds large enough to justify paying$300 million for it? I don't know. Frankly, I doubt it.

Let's stop right here. Do you think the firm that spent $300 million spent it stupidly? Answer Yes or No, so we can move on. Spoiler: They wouldn't have spent it if they didn't already know they could recover the money and more. Duh. Strike "know". They thought they could recover the money and more. That sort of expenditure is a gamble. There are plenty of cases of HFTs making losing bets. But that's not even the issue. What I said I doubted was whether the benefit to the public was worth$300 million. (The public is who benefits from bid-ask spread reduction.) It could have been smart for the firm even if the public benefit was negligible -- that would just mean their competitors made $300 million less. I'm okay with that -- I don't expect Coke to trouble itself about its strategies hurting Pepsi's profit margin either. Whether they spent it wisely or not, the fact that they did should be meaningful. Where do you think the$300 million in revenue needed to recover this cost was supposed to come from? Make a serious answer, please, to prove you're serious.
Presumably, from the price differences between New York and Chicago that the traders are trying to inform themselves about a few milliseconds faster. This is how bid-ask spreads get shrunk: a would-be buyer in Chicago now gets a lower asking price than he would have back in the 20th century because now New York sellers are competing with Chicago sellers to sell him their shares.

Wrong again. The "leapfrogging" is not a man-in-the-middle attack (although it almost sounds that way). The cable transmits information already available to brokers in Chicago, but sending it to New York faster than the other guys did.
In which case, why do you describe it as "stealing" when an HF-Trader sees an order to buy Acme Widgets for $90 in Chicago and sees somebody selling it in New York for$89.99 so he buys from one and sells to the other? Who's he supposed to be stealing from? The Chicago buyer and the New York seller? Why? Because they could otherwise have dealt with each other directly and saved a penny? They could have done that even with the HFT in the picture -- nobody forced them to deal with him. They could wait out the milliseconds, discover each other when the other guys send the news to New York, and cut out the middleman. If they choose to take the first available offer instead of waiting to see what other offers might roll in, that's their choice -- presumably the certainty of having the trade completed as soon as possible is worth a penny to them. That's not stealing; that's payment for service rendered.

I am NOT complaining about the cost of the cable. That's just symbolic of how valuable such fast data was. And, since trading is a constant-sum "game", for an HFT firm to get a Million $profit — or a Billion$ — someone else would have to lose that money.
What makes you think trading is a constant-sum game? People normally trade because both parties benefit. If I buy a hundred shares of XYZ Corp. for $1000 it's because the stock is worth more than$1000 to me. If the guy I buy it from sells it its because the stock is worth less than $1000 to him. That's not constant-sum; that's getting stock into the hands of the person the stock's worth most to while getting money into the hands of the person money's worth most to. That's positive-sum. Why is the same stock worth more than$1000 to me and less than $1000 to him? There could be any number of reasons; typically it's because of different personal situations, different discount rates, different levels of risk aversion, and different diversifications in our respective portfolios. Now that might be a serious issue. A lot of things that aren't harmful in isolation can start to do damage when they grow to become a significant fraction of market volume; buying on margin and short-selling are in that category too. Are you backing away from your previous misconception? Or did you agree with me all along? The hell are you talking about? What previous misconception? To quote myself from the previous thread, "Nobody here is arguing short selling should be unregulated." But Canada put a tax on HFT a few years ago and their bid-ask spreads rose 9%. That's not doing a favor either to regular investors or to the economy. The spread rose 9%, not the price. In other words, I might pay$90.17 for a share that otherwise might have cost $90.16. I could live with that. ... Um, [quickly works the numbers] you're saying the bid-ask spread on a$90.05 stock was 11 cents?!? Yippee!!! Let us all thank our lucky stars that HFT was invented, for making the market so liquid it has brought adequately diversified stock portfolios within easy reach of the common man.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
There is a vast difference in power, position and leverage between movie and sports stars, etc, and and an ordinary worker who has virtually none, which leaves him open to exploitation and minimum pay. Is exploitation a form of stealing? Is paying a worker less than their market value
We've been through this before. Workers are not paid less than their market value; "market value" is a phrase that means how much other people in the market pay for their labor. But you use the phrase in a funny way to mean something else, something you can't explain how to measure.

and input into company profit
How do you measure input into company profit? When a company's profit goes up faster than an employee's wage, how do you know whether the profit rise was caused by the employee doing better work or by some other factor unrelated to that employee? When a company's profit goes up faster than employees' overall wages, how do you know whether the profit rise was caused by the employees doing better work or by the managers doing better managing or by the owners providing better capital or by the customers liking the product better or by...?

just because you are legally able, a form of theft?
I once input millions of dollars into my employer's profit with about an hour of work. It happened like this: a bunch of us at this big electronics company were going through the slush pile of recent college grads' resumes, and I saw something in one of them that caught my eye and made the guy stand out to me. He looked like nothing special to the other supervisors, but I gave him a phone interview, and then we brought him in for in-person interviews. Long story short, we hired him; I was his boss for six months; then he was promoted from underling to co-worker. A few years later he was promoted again: he was my boss. Not for long, though -- he became my boss's boss. A few years after that he was a VP. The guy made millions for the company over his career; and I did that. Did the company pay me millions for my extraordinarily productive hour's work? They did not. They just paid me my regular salary. Does that mean they stole millions from me? It does not. Our bargain was they paid me a fair salary to do good work for them, and judging resumes for them was just me doing my part of the bargain, and they did their part of the bargain.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
We've been through this before. Workers are not paid less than their market value; "market value" is a phrase that means how much other people in the market pay for their labor. But you use the phrase in a funny way to mean something else, something you can't explain how to measure.

How do you measure input into company profit? When a company's profit goes up faster than an employee's wage, how do you know whether the profit rise was caused by the employee doing better work or by some other factor unrelated to that employee? When a company's profit goes up faster than employees' overall wages, how do you know whether the profit rise was caused by the employees doing better work or by the managers doing better managing or by the owners providing better capital or by the customers liking the product better or by...?

just because you are legally able, a form of theft?
I once input millions of dollars into my employer's profit with about an hour of work. It happened like this: a bunch of us at this big electronics company were going through the slush pile of recent college grads' resumes, and I saw something in one of them that caught my eye and made the guy stand out to me. He looked like nothing special to the other supervisors, but I gave him a phone interview, and then we brought him in for in-person interviews. Long story short, we hired him; I was his boss for six months; then he was promoted from underling to co-worker. A few years later he was promoted again: he was my boss. Not for long, though -- he became my boss's boss. A few years after that he was a VP. The guy made millions for the company over his career; and I did that. Did the company pay me millions for my extraordinarily productive hour's work? They did not. They just paid me my regular salary. Does that mean they stole millions from me? It does not. Our bargain was they paid me a fair salary to do good work for them, and judging resumes for them was just me doing my part of the bargain, and they did their part of the bargain.

We've been through it before, time and time again...and I pointed out over and over again that the main obstacle for workers improving their lot is a power imbalance between individual workers and management, that their pay often has nothing whatsoever with the market value of their labour or the wealth they help to generate for the company.

Management pay what they need to, be it minimum wage or rates sufficent to attract applicants in certain sectors .

Workers do better under collective bargaining, simple as that. They do better because they increase their leverage. In some cases from virtually zero leverage.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'

The OP does. You just don't recognize the destruction you're asking for.

Redistribution is not necessarily a case of 'tearing down' or making the rich poor. If done properly, productive work, fair pay for all, it is a means of improving society, the economy and the human condition. A positive thing. A building up.

You're tearing down the capital that drives innovation.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
"Necessarily"? Sure, some individual trade may well not do any good; but that isn't the issue. Trading equity in aggregate increases productive capacity. If there weren't a secondary market where you can get your money out of an investment when your situation changes and you find you need it, people would be far more reluctant to invest in production in the first place. Investors wouldn't buy into IPOs except with money they were sure they wouldn't need for years. We'd revert back to the 1700s, when to start any major undertaking you needed an angel investor to back it.
My point was I think the "increase in productive capacity" benefit is vastly over-rated not that it does not exist. I don't think it is obvious that that the empirical benefit of the increased productive capacity exceeds the empirical costs of the concentration of wealth and power and corruption of society. Unfortunately, I have not seen any attempts to measure this.

To some extent, yes; but a stock market makes it a lot easier. And since it offers better returns than the primary alternative -- lending your money to a bank -- it changes the balance of considerations that go into the decision. I.e., people will save more money if they're getting 6% returns than if they're getting 0.6%.
While it is certainly reasonable to think that an increase in a risk-adjusted after-tax return induces more saving, it is surprising that there is not much definitive evidence to support that conclusion (at least that is my understanding of the empirical research - which may be incomplete). My understanding is that we really don't understand what motivates much saving behavior.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Same question I always ask. Sounds good, how exactly do you enact it and who sets how it is redistributed.

A worse case scenario was the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

The Russian and Chinese communist attempts at forcing an equality failed catastrophically. Large scale famine in both cases.

In practcal terms what is a quantifiable definition of redistribution? What is the endpoint? Without tat it will just be anoter slippery slope into the unknown.

The problem with progressives is they are never able to precisly articulate details. It ends up being political sound bites and propaganda.

Cambodia did the same thing and took it farther--and it was even worse.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Here's a precisely articulated detailed idea: Highly progressive taxation using a formula that produces a smooth curve whereby increasing income leads to an increasing tax rate, such that the tax rate approaches 100% as taxable income approaches infinity.

By eliminating brackets, this approach eliminates bracket creep, eliminates poverty traps, and eliminates the upper bound on the rate of tax to be paid.

We don't need to eliminate brackets. My fix: Get rid of phaseouts etc. Instead, no dollar may be taxed at a rate more than 5% above your tax bracket. You are free to do a hypothetical calculation of your taxes at any value below your actual adjusted gross income, if that shows a marginal rate that's too high your taxes are reduced to that point.

The poverty trap is completely different and won't be solved this way but I would still apply the same principle to assistance payments, but with a higher percentage.

In a democracy, nobody should have sufficient wealth as to be able to singlehandedly dictate things that are properly a function of the government. If Elon Musk wants to explore Mars, his vote on whether to do so shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's. He can vote for candidates who will increase NASA's budget, and pay plenty of taxes so that they can do so without inflationary impact on the economy.

I don't see how that is inherently a government endeavor. There's also the fact that they are actually doing it, government is subject to political pressure and the money ends up in people's pockets rather than advancing mankind.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
When an HF-Trader sees an order to buy Acme Widgets for $90, he may leapfrog ahead to buy it for$89.99, resell it a few milliseconds later and make a penny profit (Never mind the details!). How do you think brokers can afford to give zero commission anyway? They aren't making you click on ads!

Zero commission trading happens because there's a slight difference between the buy price and the sell price.

Jumping ahead and buying it for $89.99 I believe would be illegal. However, owning a pool of it in anticipation of demand, buying it for$89.99 when you can get it and selling it for $90 when someone wants it is perfectly fine. #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?' The OP does. You just don't recognize the destruction you're asking for. I think it is YOU who don't recognize the "destruction" that is asked for. Reducing multi-billionaires to mere billionaires doesn't destroy anything of value. And if it enables millions of people to rise above the poverty line, it's well worth it. Of course that is a big "if". IF, for instance, all it does is put billions into political action committees to enable them to spread Big Lies, then no - it's not worth anything. Congratulations, you just killed Space-X. Nothing of value? #### bilby ##### Fair dinkum thinkum Here's a precisely articulated detailed idea: Highly progressive taxation using a formula that produces a smooth curve whereby increasing income leads to an increasing tax rate, such that the tax rate approaches 100% as taxable income approaches infinity. By eliminating brackets, this approach eliminates bracket creep, eliminates poverty traps, and eliminates the upper bound on the rate of tax to be paid. We don't need to eliminate brackets. My fix: Get rid of phaseouts etc. Instead, no dollar may be taxed at a rate more than 5% above your tax bracket. You are free to do a hypothetical calculation of your taxes at any value below your actual adjusted gross income, if that shows a marginal rate that's too high your taxes are reduced to that point. The poverty trap is completely different and won't be solved this way but I would still apply the same principle to assistance payments, but with a higher percentage. In a democracy, nobody should have sufficient wealth as to be able to singlehandedly dictate things that are properly a function of the government. If Elon Musk wants to explore Mars, his vote on whether to do so shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's. He can vote for candidates who will increase NASA's budget, and pay plenty of taxes so that they can do so without inflationary impact on the economy. I don't see how that is inherently a government endeavor. There's also the fact that they are actually doing it, government is subject to political pressure and the money ends up in people's pockets rather than advancing mankind. "Political pressure" is another way of saying "democracy". One man deciding how mankind should advance is called "dictatorship", and is generally a bad thing. Even if occasionally the dictator chooses to do something you too would have supported. #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member Even if his numbers are right his understanding is not. The billionaires didn't make$1T during the pandemic, but I think I see where he's getting his numbers.

The Dow is up about 3% since before things blew up. However, it's up 50% over the worst of the oh-shit period in March. If you measure from that point I have no problem believing $1T in gains--but he's ignoring the nearly$1T in losses before that.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
We've been through it before, time and time again...and I pointed out over and over again that the main obstacle for workers improving their lot is a power imbalance between individual workers and management, that their pay often has nothing whatsoever with the market value of their labour or the wealth they help to generate for the company.

Management pay what they need to, be it minimum wage or rates sufficent to attract applicants in certain sectors .

Workers do better under collective bargaining, simple as that. They do better because they increase their leverage. In some cases from virtually zero leverage.
Yes, you keep saying that, over and over. But you never explain why a power imbalance implies "market value" means anything other than "what they get paid"; you never explain why a power imbalance implies that whatever it is you mean by "market value" is measurable rather than metaphysical; and you never explain why a power imbalance implies "the current wage is theft" rather than the more prosaic "the wage will go up if the workers vote for a union".

#### DBT

##### Contributor
We've been through it before, time and time again...and I pointed out over and over again that the main obstacle for workers improving their lot is a power imbalance between individual workers and management, that their pay often has nothing whatsoever with the market value of their labour or the wealth they help to generate for the company.

Management pay what they need to, be it minimum wage or rates sufficent to attract applicants in certain sectors .

Workers do better under collective bargaining, simple as that. They do better because they increase their leverage. In some cases from virtually zero leverage.
Yes, you keep saying that, over and over. But you never explain why a power imbalance implies "market value" means anything other than "what they get paid"; you never explain why a power imbalance implies that whatever it is you mean by "market value" is measurable rather than metaphysical; and you never explain why a power imbalance implies "the current wage is theft" rather than the more prosaic "the wage will go up if the workers vote for a union".

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
The dialog between Bomb#20 and myself has veered into pure insults. It's pointless to continue, but Bomb's final sentence is hilarious so I'll share the joke ...
Um, [quickly works the numbers] you're saying the bid-ask spread on a $90.05 stock was 11 cents?!? Yippee!!! Let us all thank our lucky stars that HFT was invented, for making the market so liquid it has brought adequately diversified stock portfolios within easy reach of the common man. It was YOU who pretended that this 9% increase in spread was a big deal, that it would damage the real economy. But now you're admitting that One Big Penny (which was me rounding UP to see your "case" in a favorable light) was an OVER-estimate. You didn't notice that your final lashing-out contradicted your own point?? Hilarious. #### ZiprHead ##### Loony Running The Asylum Staff member Redistribution is not necessarily a case of 'tearing down' or making the rich poor. If done properly, productive work, fair pay for all, it is a means of improving society, the economy and the human condition. A positive thing. A building up. You're tearing down the capital that drives innovation. Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased. #### Bomb#20 ##### Contributor Yes, you keep saying that, over and over. But you never explain why a power imbalance implies "market value" means anything other than "what they get paid"; you never explain why a power imbalance implies that whatever it is you mean by "market value" is measurable rather than metaphysical; and you never explain why a power imbalance implies "the current wage is theft" rather than the more prosaic "the wage will go up if the workers vote for a union". Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer. If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. <snip> I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating. The Underpants Gnomes' business plan: Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value. Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2? Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard Yes, you keep saying that, over and over. But you never explain why a power imbalance implies "market value" means anything other than "what they get paid"; you never explain why a power imbalance implies that whatever it is you mean by "market value" is measurable rather than metaphysical; and you never explain why a power imbalance implies "the current wage is theft" rather than the more prosaic "the wage will go up if the workers vote for a union". Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer. If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. <snip> I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating. The Underpants Gnomes' business plan: Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value. Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2? Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase two is "apply leverage to imbalanced power structure" I talk about symmetry, asymmetry, and leverage on these forums pretty regularly, and the cycle at play here. At this point it seems like you are just willfully being obtuse. #### Bomb#20 ##### Contributor Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value. Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2? Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase two is "apply leverage to imbalanced power structure" I talk about symmetry, asymmetry, and leverage on these forums pretty regularly, and the cycle at play here. At this point it seems like you are just willfully being obtuse. At this point it seems like you are just non-willfully being obtuse. That's still Phase 1. By what reasoning do you infer that symmetry, asymmetry, and leverage cause workers to be paid less than their market value? Help me out here. Do you even know what the phrase "market value" means? #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value. Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2? Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase two is "apply leverage to imbalanced power structure" I talk about symmetry, asymmetry, and leverage on these forums pretty regularly, and the cycle at play here. At this point it seems like you are just willfully being obtuse. At this point it seems like you are just non-willfully being obtuse. That's still Phase 1. By what reasoning do you infer that symmetry, asymmetry, and leverage cause workers to be paid less than their market value? Help me out here. Do you even know what the phrase "market value" means? Your mistake is assuming I care about your vaunted "market value". You come to this under the mistaken assumption that some person has an absolute "market value." They do not. First, and most importantly, people are not reducible to a market value. This is objectification of human lives. Stop it. Secondly, market value is negotiable, and a product of leverage. Let's take for example my own recent job search. I have a senior title, have been at my job for over the "entry level" number of years, am in a space where 99% of all applicants don't even know how to start to do the job, and am not out of work and starving. I am not vulnerable to leverage. Now let's imagine some calculus changes: my company goes under. Suddenly I would NEED a job. Calculus changes and I lose all my leverage. Nothing changed about me, merely my leverage changed. Where I could previously demand 130, I can at best swing 110, probably less. I know between jobs, personally, I settled for 12/hr for the two weeks before I got hired. Market value is itself a function of all asymmetries calculated to an absolute value. Do YOU even understand what the phrase "market value" means? Also, you seem to be having trouble counting: (create asymmetry), (leverage asymmetry), (profit) is three steps. #### Bomb#20 ##### Contributor The dialog between Bomb#20 and myself has veered into pure insults. It has? I'm sorry then; I didn't intend to be insulting. Peace. It's pointless to continue, but Bomb's final sentence is hilarious so I'll share the joke ... Um, [quickly works the numbers] you're saying the bid-ask spread on a$90.05 stock was 11 cents?!? Yippee!!! Let us all thank our lucky stars that HFT was invented, for making the market so liquid it has brought adequately diversified stock portfolios within easy reach of the common man.
It was YOU who pretended that this 9% increase in spread was a big deal, that it would damage the real economy. But now you're admitting that One Big Penny (which was me rounding UP to see your "case" in a favorable light) was an OVER-estimate. You didn't notice that your final lashing-out contradicted your own point??

Hilarious.
I lost you. What did you round up? What did I overestimate? I assumed those were arbitrary sample numbers you made up for the sake of discussion; is there some real stock you were talking about?

In general, big and popular companies have much lower spreads than small and obscure companies; I did not mean to suggest that taxing HFT would significantly harm an investor in Apple, Inc.; I was just cautioning against overdoing it; and I was proving the causal connection between HFT and bid-ask spreads. The ratio you posted would be pretty normal for a major company in 2021, but it'd typically be a lot more for a small company, or for a major company in 2001. As I said before, I don't object to taxing HFT as long as it's done moderately and prudently. I wasn't lashing out at you; I was trying to bring the discussion back to my main point, which is that HFT is an overall benefit to society. Bid-ask spreads have dropped enormously in the last 20 years, largely due to HFT. A stock like your example, with its 0.1% spread, would have been unheard of in 2001; that was the point of my "Yippee!".

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
At this point it seems like you are just non-willfully being obtuse. That's still Phase 1. By what reasoning do you infer that symmetry, asymmetry, and leverage cause workers to be paid less than their market value? Help me out here. Do you even know what the phrase "market value" means?

Your mistake is assuming I care about your vaunted "market value".
Your mistake is butting into a debate over an issue you don't care about. If you didn't mean to show how to get from Phase 1 to Phase 3, why did you pretend to be doing so?

You come to this under the mistaken assumption that some person has an absolute "market value." They do not.
Feel free to show where I assumed that.

First, and most importantly, people are not reducible to a market value. This is objectification of human lives. Stop it.
Your wife is not reducible to a beating target. Stop it.

Do YOU even understand what the phrase "market value" means?
Yes. It's DBT who doesn't. That's why he says the nonsensical things he says; that's why I challenge him on them.

Also, you seem to be having trouble counting: (create asymmetry), (leverage asymmetry), (profit) is three steps.
Oh for the love of god! If they break "Steal Underpants" up into "Sneak into bedroom. Find underpants. Pick up underpants. Sneak out of bedroom.", the gnomes will have described more than three steps; but they still won't have explained how to get to "Profit".

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Oh for the love of god! If they break "Steal Underpants" up into "Sneak into bedroom. Find underpants. Pick up underpants. Sneak out of bedroom.", the gnomes will have described more than three steps; but they still won't have explained how to get to "Profit".

WhY CaNt I HolD AlL ThEse LiMeS?!?

Dude, leveraging asymmetry is "profit", if you really want to get down to brass tacks.

Go pretend to not know how to carry limes somewhere else.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Yes, you keep saying that, over and over. But you never explain why a power imbalance implies "market value" means anything other than "what they get paid"; you never explain why a power imbalance implies that whatever it is you mean by "market value" is measurable rather than metaphysical; and you never explain why a power imbalance implies "the current wage is theft" rather than the more prosaic "the wage will go up if the workers vote for a union".

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. <snip> I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.
The Underpants Gnomes' business plan:

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value.

Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2?

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance.

So you didn't understand what was said. Or even willing to. I'm not surprised. That, right from the beginning, a job applicant needs to impress the manager in order to get the job, their success being in the hands of the manager, whom they must please because the manager holds the cards and makes the decision, which the applicant/supplicant cannot alter, does not need explaining.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
There is an idea that I bumped into recently, that coordinated market economies like the Scandinavian countries are actually only able to afford their social systems because there are liberal economies like the USA that are doing all the "hard" innovations on their behalf. It's much easier being a follower than a leader. If the United States were to enact same kind of programs, it would crash not only the economic output of Americans, but also those in the countries that are piggy-backing on its success.

Which is almost certainly bollocks. Growth in the US economy, all OECD economies and the global economy were all markedly higher during the co-ordinated market Bretton-Woods era of low inequality when the US economy was much more like the European social democracies.

Maybe. But back then the world economies were much more protectionist, and much less interconnected than now. Not to mention that everyone was recovering from WW2. Anyway, I found the original article that introduced the idea. Excerpt:

Article said:
We can’t all be like the Nordics, can we?

The main result of this theoretical investigation is that, in the long run, all countries tend to grow at the same rate, but those with cuddly reward structures are strictly poorer. Notably, however, these countries may have higher welfare than the cut-throat leader; in fact if the initial gap between the frontier economy and the followers is small enough, the cuddly followers will necessarily have higher welfare because of the greater social insurance that their institutions provide. Thus, our analysis confirms the intuition that all countries may want to be like the Nordics with a more extensive safety net and a more egalitarian structure.

Yet the main implication of our theoretical framework is that we cannot all be like the Nordics! Indeed it is not an equilibrium choice for the cut-throat leader, the US, to become cuddly. As a matter of fact, given the institutional choices of other countries, if the cut-throat leader were to switch to such cuddly capitalism, this would reduce the growth rate of the entire world economy, discouraging the adoption of the more egalitarian reward structure. In contrast, followers are still happy to choose an institutional system associated to a more egalitarian reward structure. Indeed, this choice, though making them poorer, does not permanently reduce their growth rates, thanks to the positive technological externalities created by the cut-throat technology leader. This line of reasoning suggests therefore that in an interconnected world, it may be precisely the more cut-throat American society, with its extant inequalities, that makes possible the existence of more cuddly Nordic societies.

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
The Underpants Gnomes' business plan:

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value.

Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2?

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance.

So you didn't understand what was said. Or even willing to. I'm not surprised. That, right from the beginning, a job applicant needs to impress the manager in order to get the job, their success being in the hands of the manager, whom they must please because the manager holds the cards and makes the decision, which the applicant/supplicant cannot alter, does not need explaining.

Yes, it would greatly empower workers if instead they were evaluated on their ability to watch spongbob and eat bonbons all day. After all, what good company would want employees who were "impressive" at their job!

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

Note, also, that there are various skilled fields where the practitioners have the choice of being an employee or doing it on their own. If there really was the imbalance you talk about this would cause a big shift towards doing your own business. Note that there are also hybrid cases where workers can work with an employer for a percentage of their receipts rather than a salary. Again, if there was the imbalance you think there is you would see a lot of shift towards that sort of arrangement.

Reality check: My wife used to work under such an agreement. A coworker got jealous and wanted the same sort of agreement, thinking he would be making a lot more money. Oops--he discovered the reality was that his income didn't shoot up and that he often would get paid months later as he got paid when the office got paid. You do make somewhat more that way because you are assuming some of the risk the employer normally assumes. (When you're an employee you are paid for doing your work, if the company doesn't get paid it doesn't come out of your check. Something goes wrong and you're just sitting on your ass, the employee gets paid.)

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Redistribution is not necessarily a case of 'tearing down' or making the rich poor. If done properly, productive work, fair pay for all, it is a means of improving society, the economy and the human condition. A positive thing. A building up.

You're tearing down the capital that drives innovation.

Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

No it doesn't. The only exception to the power imbalance is if someone has highly prized skills, and these individuals are in short supply. Then the shoe is on the other foot, it is the employer who becomes the supplicant.....come work for us, we'll shower you with money, perks, lurks, a company vehicle, generous bonus and pension plan.

Ordinary workers have no such leverage, yet do essential work, serve customers, clean rooms and facilities, drive delivery trucks....without which the business does not function.

This doesn't need explaining over and over. You either know it's true but are in denial, or live on a different planet.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

There's no such thing as 'personal money'. Money is a measure of debt owed by civilisation to its participants, and as such belongs to civilisation.

Typically civilisations have a government of some description that has the role of rebalancing those debts if they slip out of alignment with the government's opinion of what is owed to whom.

When the government is a dictatorship, that opinion is the personal opinion of the dictator, which tends to be problematic. When the government is a democracy, government opinion is, at least in principle, public opinion.

Why is Elon Musk owed a personal space exploration organisation? Or any other similarly expensive indulgence?

The 'free market' argument holds that the aggregate of all the small earnings he made from PayPal transactions (amongst other things such as his family providing some of their wealth from emerald mining using slave labourers, and various other sources of wealth) adds up to his having that level of IOU outstanding from society. Similarly, a popular musician or actor is 'owed' the aggregated billions of small sums paid by people who enjoy their performances.

But no developed nation has a government that agrees. Every one of them feels that a proportion of that debt is not owed to the holder. They re-balance his entitlement by taking a proportion of society's money from those who have more than they 'deserve', and destroying it. This process is called 'taxation'.

They also re-balance the entitlements of people for whom the free exchange of goods and services in return for societal endebtedness fails to provide the entitlements they deserve. They do this by creating 'money', and giving it to those deemed 'deserving'. This is called 'government spending'

Typically there is a further attempt to balance the 'tax' and 'spend' portions of government activity with economic growth, to maintain a controlled rate of inflation - that is, an approximately stable value for money over time, erring on the side of a slight reduction, rather than increase, in that value (value being here defined by the quantity of money needed to obtain the same goods and/or services at different times).

So the question 'Should Elon Musk be allowed to have a personal space program?' has nothing to do with 'his money', because he doesn't use his money - he uses the USA's money, the dollar. And whether he should be allowed enough of those US dollars to run a personal space program is a matter for government opinion, which in a representative democracy should at least to some degree align with public opinion.

And therefore the response 'he has earned his money and can spend it however he chooses' fails to even address the question. The question is, at its heart, 'how much of the money he has should he be allowed to keep?'. And almost every currency issuing authority in modern history has (and continues to have) the response 'not all of it'.

Which gets us back to the real question. Do you think the public in general and aggregate are happy to let Musk run a personal space program, despite never having seen his name on any ballot, nor his personal space program as a ballot proposition?

The idea of "personal money" being nonsensical, it really shouldn't form any part of the answer to that (or similar) questions.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.

#### Worldtraveller

##### Veteran Member
Yes, you keep saying that, over and over. But you never explain why a power imbalance implies "market value" means anything other than "what they get paid"; you never explain why a power imbalance implies that whatever it is you mean by "market value" is measurable rather than metaphysical; and you never explain why a power imbalance implies "the current wage is theft" rather than the more prosaic "the wage will go up if the workers vote for a union".

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. <snip> I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.
The Underpants Gnomes' business plan:

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value.

Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2?

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance.
Based on all these idiotic, historically inaccurate and plain cruel hypotheses, the libertarian (does bomb admit to being a libertarian, I forget) arguments about the free market would extend to pretty much any situation.

So why shouldn't we:
- eliminate all environmental regulations?
- get rid of traffic regulations?
- Eliminate the FAA and let airplane manufacturers do what they want?
- etc....

The free market is bullshit, and we know what happens (remember the early industrial revolution, or are you ok with sending your kids to work in the coal mines?). It's like the gop that keeps arguing that trickle down economics and tax cuts for wealthy do anything except put more money in the pockets of the wealthy. It's been shown false, it's been tried dozens of times in the US (and is on going in several failing states), and yet, they insist that it 'works'.....

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
When they stop getting paid to say it works they will no longer insist.

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.
But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.
But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.
Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.
But that is pretty much the normal state now. Or at least that is what the fed is trying to tell us. Even before the pandemic they were telling us inflation is what we need and without their quasi constitutional help buying up corporate debt (and other maneuvering) we will certainly have deflation and massive unemployment.

There are many who say we are now in a permanent lost decade of low interest, deflation and high unemployment similar to Japan.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.
But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.
Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

Musk is an outlier. What does the Walton family do with their money, other than fund right-wing think tanks that promote low taxation and anti-union efforts?

How about hedge fund and vulture capital CEOs that make money tearing businesses apart and making people unemployed?

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.
But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.
Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

But Loren's point was that SpaceX would not have been founded in the first place without enormous seed money provided by Musk. Angel capital would never have touched this kind of investment.

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

Musk is an outlier. What does the Walton family do with their money, other than fund right-wing think tanks that promote low taxation and anti-union efforts?

How about hedge fund and vulture capital CEOs that make money tearing businesses apart and making people unemployed?

Now you are getting at something. Let some of the billionaires keep their money but tax the hell out of the real scoundrels.

#### masterpeastheater

##### New member
Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

Note, also, that there are various skilled fields where the practitioners have the choice of being an employee or doing it on their own. If there really was the imbalance you talk about this would cause a big shift towards doing your own business. Note that there are also hybrid cases where workers can work with an employer for a percentage of their receipts rather than a salary. Again, if there was the imbalance you think there is you would see a lot of shift towards that sort of arrangement.

Um, for how many people is this starting your own business thing a real option? Even for skilled workers, starting a business takes a good deal of CAPITAL that most don't have. THAT is why there is no big shift toward having your own business, not because working for someone else isn't shitty

#### DBT

##### Contributor
If everybody could start their own business....who would do the grunt work?

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
If everybody could start their own business....who would do the grunt work?

Grunts, inc.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
If everybody could start their own business....who would do the grunt work?

Illegal immigrant and PHDs in history and sociology.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

No it doesn't. The only exception to the power imbalance is if someone has highly prized skills, and these individuals are in short supply. Then the shoe is on the other foot, it is the employer who becomes the supplicant.....come work for us, we'll shower you with money, perks, lurks, a company vehicle, generous bonus and pension plan.

Ordinary workers have no such leverage, yet do essential work, serve customers, clean rooms and facilities, drive delivery trucks....without which the business does not function.

This doesn't need explaining over and over. You either know it's true but are in denial, or live on a different planet.

You're making my point! Low unemployment, market forces favor the worker.

It's just what we are seeing amongst the unskilled is not low unemployment.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

....

The idea of "personal money" being nonsensical, it really shouldn't form any part of the answer to that (or similar) questions.

You're missing the point.

ZiprHead claimed that innovation came from business putting money to research rather than profit. I was pointing out that that's not how it worked with Space-X. Space-X came about because one individual took a pile of money he made as profit from one company and used it to create a totally separate company.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.
But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.
Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

Space-X only made it to space on the very last launch they had funding for. One more failure and space would be a very different place.