Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
53. Rather than a Maximum Wage that attempts to pin some number on an amorphous concept
Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:16 PM
Jan 2014

such as wealth or compensation, how about a national minimum standard of living?

When every American is free from unreasonable necessity, who really cares about the mindless pursuit of more?

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

the money for CEO's isn't in wage/salary, it's in 'incentive compensation' that geek tragedy Jan 2014 #1
So you include that as part of their assessed compensation. n/t Chan790 Jan 2014 #5
I guess you could get the IRS applying Black Scholes to the option grants, geek tragedy Jan 2014 #7
what if you work for yourself or say, in the entertainment industry? dionysus Jan 2014 #2
I say it should apply to any publicly held corporation OR privately loudsue Jan 2014 #4
sounds good to me dionysus Jan 2014 #6
Holy shit YES!!! THIS is the conversation we really need to be having!!! loudsue Jan 2014 #3
So what should it be? FrodosPet Jan 2014 #10
Yep. Enforcement is the problem, but the standards nevertheless have to be set. loudsue Jan 2014 #12
Ben and Jerry's set theirs at 10x the lowest paid worker which is the Green Party's proposed adirondacker Jan 2014 #59
That will lead to more temporary jobs Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #8
Correct on all points. nt Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #14
Then attach it to a multiple of the median wage for whatever country. Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #16
k Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #18
If you incorporate your business Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #25
No more small business then? Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #27
What in the hell are you talking about? Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #28
we're talking about taxes Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #30
I was responding to your argument on companies cutting jobs to go around the idea in the OP. Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #33
And ... Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #31
Do you mean using a "Doing Business As". Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #35
no Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #43
Ah yes that is completely true. Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #45
incorporation doesn't protect you Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #47
Nothing, because you've pretty well ensured that you will be broke very quickly. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #26
That's why risk is rewarded Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #29
As I said, in a sane system one would start a business because they want to do Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #34
sane? Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #48
Personally I think two things would go the furthest. Eliminate any distinction between incomes. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #51
Or a living wage....no one is talking about a living wage, was popular at one time.....now?? a kennedy Jan 2014 #9
I figure we need a generous minimum wage... hunter Jan 2014 #11
gibberish Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #13
A job that can't pay a good living wage isn't worth doing. hunter Jan 2014 #20
explain it to me then Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #23
Who is cutting apart your grocery store chickens? hunter Jan 2014 #37
If you have a machine shop you are putting money into, the money for the business is a deduction haele Jan 2014 #41
but that is not what is being said Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #46
It's not likely I can sell you anything. But I have zero respect for great wealth. hunter Jan 2014 #55
You can't sell me the multiple of 20 Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #56
The "minimum wealth" for both the foolhardy and the not foolhardy could be kept in trust. hunter Jan 2014 #58
it's called progressive taxation. think of the tax rate in the 50's. cali Jan 2014 #15
Scuba's Rule - TBF Jan 2014 #17
Now you're talking! world wide wally Jan 2014 #19
I've been saying we need one for years. redqueen Jan 2014 #21
The problem isn't wages, it's return on capital. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #22
Exactly. Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #24
Elimenate the Tax deduction on wages over $1 Million FreakinDJ Jan 2014 #32
So, the proper term we should be working with is "income" not "wages". nt ladjf Jan 2014 #39
Funny. Professional sports leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB all have salary caps/luxury taxes Yavin4 Jan 2014 #36
There's always the way we used to do it... JHB Jan 2014 #38
A maximum wage is a very different thing to a maximum wage ratio. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2014 #40
Maximum wage talk long past due and will never happen fadedrose Jan 2014 #42
I heard Lewis Black (iirc) talk about a maximum wage a few years ago. Lunacee_2013 Jan 2014 #44
Federal contractor wages ProSense Jan 2014 #49
The problem of "no more than a multiple of the lowest" is... JHB Jan 2014 #50
What part of our Constitution would that fall under? upaloopa Jan 2014 #52
Rather than a Maximum Wage that attempts to pin some number on an amorphous concept Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #53
Switzerland tried to enact the "multiple" thing. moondust Jan 2014 #54
I think we worry too much about CEO pay Travis_0004 Jan 2014 #57
So Peyton Manning could earn up to 10 times what the beer salesman earns? Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #60
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can we talk about a Maxim...»Reply #53