Maximum wage

[justaddh2o]

55. Some thoughts

I'm sorry if I've offended you with my posts. That's not what I meant at all. I'm merely curious and like to read the posts here about interesting topics. And this one has been on my mind and I noticed no one has talked about it yet. Thus my reason for posting and replying to responses, including yours.

As for your Elon Musk example, I don't know his particular financial history, but I do know that most people who start companies, no matter how big or small, usually start it with OPM, whether it's from an investor, a bank, one's grandmother, etc. So I don't think Elon needed to invest all his own money in order to create any future companies. Since he had a track record with previous successes in fact, he would have been able to get OPM pretty easily. And he's a smart guy to boot

He's also a rather curious example -- his products are innovative yes, but also quite expensive and shall I say "exclusive" -- at least so far. (A hugely expensive car, albeit an electric one, and space travel for profit). I wonder what $164M would have done for say, funding public colleges or building shelters for the homeless.

This does bring up a corollary to my original question though and that is this: if someone keeps more than they need (as you suggest a limitless amount), then are they then free to spend that limitless amount on anything else they want? If so, then does the public at large have any say in it? Perhaps not, if the individual spends it on something that only benefits or applies to that wealthy individual. But what about them spending their wealth on something that could hurt others? The Koch Brothers spring to my mind, for example.

Therefore, shouldn't the spending of surplus (if not the limiting of the surplus) be somehow voted on, since we live in a democratic system, and since it can affect the well being or pain of everyone?

As for your last comment about how you find it unbelievable that I don't think increasing hourly rates would work, it's because I'm even more "radical" than Bernie. I think we should democratize the workplace and convert all businesses to worker-owned cooperatives. That way the profits to the business are distributed fairly to all employees. Employees set wages and pick their managers. To my way of thinking, this is the only way to eliminate income inequality. A progressive taxing system and increased hourly rates are merely a stop-gap measure that can't work long term. They're based on a purely capitalist perspective and sooner or later we'll come to realize that capitalism can't be fixed. As Hillary said, she wanted to "save capitalism from itself". I have to ask, why bother? Especially when there are other systems to explore. We'll get beyond capitalism at some point. At least I hope so.

Just because I support Bernie doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I do agree with the majority of what he proposes and I feel his stance on climate change mirrors mine and is the one issue that I care most about. If we can't breathe, everything else is moot.

I hope I've not offended. I'm really interested in your take and enjoy reading your perspective.