|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Norway28870 Posts
On September 12 2018 22:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative. so, to be clear, you agree that it is a form of wealth redistribution, that due to its complexity, causes fewer social problems in practice because it's a less transparent way of redistributing the wealth that meshes better with human psychology? Just trying to be clear on your answer to my prior query. as while your response is interesting and nuanced, it didn't include a clear, specific answer to my question.
I don't really know if I agree that it's a form of wealth redistribution. Might as well call exorbitant CEO pay a bottom-up wealth redistribution. While there are exceptions, I generally don't think that CEOs of companies are more essential than the workers in creating that company's wealth, and thus I hardly agree with the notion that they are the ones who created the wealth in the first place.
(apologies if I get some econ-terminology wrong - this is not my field.)
|
On September 12 2018 19:54 Acrofales wrote:
I'm not sure about French politics, but they do this in Dutch politics all the time too, and it is entirely irrelevant. Polls only matter when there's something to be voted for.
There are upcoming elections in May 2019
|
On September 12 2018 22:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 22:22 zlefin wrote:On September 12 2018 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative. so, to be clear, you agree that it is a form of wealth redistribution, that due to its complexity, causes fewer social problems in practice because it's a less transparent way of redistributing the wealth that meshes better with human psychology? Just trying to be clear on your answer to my prior query. as while your response is interesting and nuanced, it didn't include a clear, specific answer to my question. I don't really know if I agree that it's a form of wealth redistribution. Might as well call exorbitant CEO pay a bottom-up wealth redistribution. While there are exceptions, I generally don't think that CEOs of companies are more essential than the workers in creating that company's wealth, and thus I hardly agree with the notion that they are the ones who created the wealth in the first place. (apologies if I get some econ-terminology wrong - this is not my field.)
that's fine, your terminology is clear enough.
on calling ceo pay wealth redistribution, relative to what?
when we talk about wealth redistribution, I think we normally mean some law/regulation/tax changes the distribution of wealth compared to what it would be without that law.
clearly having high taxes on the rich, which are used to fund programs to help the poor, are a form of wealth redistribution.
would having laws for a high minimum wage, ceo pay limits, and workers having part ownership in the company (or other forms of them having a say) change the distribution of wealth compared to what would be the case if there were no such laws?
|
Norway28870 Posts
worker ownership might not be viable for all companies, but some highly successful smaller businesses operate that way. When I think of CEO pay limits, it's not about absolute numbers, but about how much they can make relative to the lowest paid worker in the same company or the average paid worker or a combination thereof. Then a CEO can still increase his pay, if the company is thriving so much that all the workers are also getting paid more.
Minimum wage I just dunno. Norway doesn't have a formalized minimum wage, but we still pay the lowest paid workers more than almost anywhere else. Salary negotiation normally doesn't happen on an individual level here, but collectively by unions. If there's suddenly a year where the CEO's give themselves 20% pay raises while the regular workers get 1.5%, that's a good way to incentivize a strike as far as I'm concerned. But there's no question that the scandinavian model, insofar as you can call it a model, gives a more equitable distribution of wealth than the case is for the US.
|
On September 12 2018 23:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
worker ownership might not be viable for all companies, but some highly successful smaller businesses operate that way. When I think of CEO pay limits, it's not about absolute numbers, but about how much they can make relative to the lowest paid worker in the same company or the average paid worker or a combination thereof. Then a CEO can still increase his pay, if the company is thriving so much that all the workers are also getting paid more.
Minimum wage I just dunno. Norway doesn't have a formalized minimum wage, but we still pay the lowest paid workers more than almost anywhere else. Salary negotiation normally doesn't happen on an individual level here, but collectively by unions. If there's suddenly a year where the CEO's give themselves 20% pay raises while the regular workers get 1.5%, that's a good way to incentivize a strike as far as I'm concerned. But there's no question that the scandinavian model, insofar as you can call it a model, gives a more equitable distribution of wealth than the case is for the US.
interesting points; but I would prefer if you, in addition to your fine points, also answer the question I specifically asked. You're talking around/near the topic, but I never really see a clear answer to the pointed question.
I agree that's often what's meant by ceo pay limits, the question still applies of course.
the scandinavian model does seem to work well; the question is how does one export it? what, if any, laws would replicate it? how much of it is only feasible due to local cultural factors? (these questions are semi-rhetorical, no need to answer them)
|
Meanwhile in importante EU news, a two-thirds majority in the European Parliament voted in favor of a report condemning Victor Orbáns government in Hungary of violation of European values. The report proposes actioning Article 7 of the EU treaty which could eventually suspend Hungary's voting rights. There's still a long way before any sort of punishment is enacted but it's good to see the EU showing some teeth in the face of a corrosion of democratic values in one of its member states.
|
The problem is that article 7 requires unanimity minus the country targetted. Never gonna happen with Poland which is also under an article 7 procedure for the same populist far right authoritarian reforms. They are gonna veto each other’s sanctions.
And of course Orban is gonna milk that to death. Then again the alternative is to do nothing.
|
The more important news should be that they voted in favor of ACTA2.
|
That regulation seems to have a lot of pitfalls. But does seem like a step forward to curb the influence of the largest companies like Google and Facebook. The “link tax” allowing publications venue to set the prices for linking their articles through facebook and google. Given that both those “search engines” have news tabs now, publications should be empowered to set the rate for companies to feature their articles, rather than being grateful for the “exposure”.
Of course the tech industry hates it, but Wall Street hates being regulated too.
|
On September 13 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
That regulation seems to have a lot of pitfalls. But does seem like a step forward to curb the influence of the largest companies like Google and Facebook. The “link tax” allowing publications venue to set the prices for linking their articles through facebook and google. Given that both those “search engines” have news tabs now, publications should be empowered to set the rate for companies to feature their articles, rather than being grateful for the “exposure”.
Of course the tech industry hates it, but Wall Street hates being regulated too.
I'm curious how you think that hurts google or facebook. Link tax is going to destroy any competition these giants have, not regulate the big tech companies.
|
Norway28870 Posts
yeah this isn't gonna be a problem for facebook or google.
|
On September 12 2018 22:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative. so, to be clear, you agree that it is a form of wealth redistribution, that due to its complexity, causes fewer social problems in practice because it's a less transparent way of redistributing the wealth that meshes better with human psychology? Just trying to be clear on your answer to my prior query. as while your response is interesting and nuanced, it didn't include a clear, specific answer to my question.
Minimum wage upholds the social contract between owner and worker in lieu of powerful collective bargaining via unions. Taxation is corrective redistributive justice. Both minimum wage and redistributive taxation pursue economic and social justice, but minimum wage isn't redistributive because the idea that redistribution is an attempt to correct what would happen without that law isn't entirely correct. They are both means, above all, of pursuing distributive justice, but minimum wage is grounded far more securely in the idea of the social contract than progressive taxation is.
|
On September 13 2018 01:49 warding wrote:Meanwhile in importante EU news, a two-thirds majority in the European Parliament voted in favor of a report condemning Victor Orbáns government in Hungary of violation of European values. The report proposes actioning Article 7 of the EU treaty which could eventually suspend Hungary's voting rights. There's still a long way before any sort of punishment is enacted but it's good to see the EU showing some teeth in the face of a corrosion of democratic values in one of its member states.
I want to see EPP leadership attempt to justify voting for this toothless measure against Hungary, but refusing to kick Orban's party out of their ranks, which actually is doable.
|
On September 13 2018 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
That regulation seems to have a lot of pitfalls. But does seem like a step forward to curb the influence of the largest companies like Google and Facebook. The “link tax” allowing publications venue to set the prices for linking their articles through facebook and google. Given that both those “search engines” have news tabs now, publications should be empowered to set the rate for companies to feature their articles, rather than being grateful for the “exposure”.
Of course the tech industry hates it, but Wall Street hates being regulated too. I'm curious how you think that hurts google or facebook. Link tax is going to destroy any competition these giants have, not regulate the big tech companies.
These companies are never going to have competition for Amazon, Google and Facebook; they dominate the market so heavily and are actively trying to tamp down on anyone who might compete with them. There is a reason Facebook bought instangram. There is no coming to turn Facebook into Myspace. And if the last couple of years has proven anything, companies the size of Google are not very good at complying with EU regulations. They will violation these new ones. While some smaller, more nimble EU firm will figure out how to comply and provide some of the services Google and Facebook do.
And I have no seen anything that would convince me that the "link tax"(which isn't a tax) is going to kill competition. Publications have the ability to charge for a license to link their articles. They don't have to set the same rate for every company.
|
On September 13 2018 04:42 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 22:22 zlefin wrote:On September 12 2018 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative. so, to be clear, you agree that it is a form of wealth redistribution, that due to its complexity, causes fewer social problems in practice because it's a less transparent way of redistributing the wealth that meshes better with human psychology? Just trying to be clear on your answer to my prior query. as while your response is interesting and nuanced, it didn't include a clear, specific answer to my question. Minimum wage upholds the social contract between owner and worker in lieu of powerful collective bargaining via unions. Taxation is corrective redistributive justice. Both minimum wage and redistributive taxation pursue economic and social justice, but minimum wage isn't redistributive because the idea that redistribution is an attempt to correct what would happen without that law isn't entirely correct. They are both means, above all, of pursuing distributive justice, but minimum wage is grounded far more securely in the idea of the social contract than progressive taxation is.
you seem to be using the words in a different meaning/sense than I, or Drone (as far as I can tell), are using them, which makes it less clear what exact point you're trying to make. It's somewhat clear, but not completely; it looks like you're insisting that an alternate definition is more appropriate.
|
Is there someone who could explain to me why the link tax would be a good idea? Because at first glance it seems like a terrible idea to me.
If im understanding it right it would mean that for example reddit could be charged by every site they link to?
|
My understanding it is that it allows companies to create a license to reference their articles or output. A news paper could charge a company like reddit a fee for a link to their article. The vast majority of the internet wouldn’t do this. But a news paper could then work out an agreement for Google to link to their articles on a whole sale or per article basis, rather than throw up a pay wall to prevent people from reading.
The label “link tax” seems to be deliberately misleading, because it isn’t a tax. It is a system that would need to be asserted by rights holder of the article or other copyrighted material. If a publication or film maker doesn’t want to use the system, it does not seem that companies need to worry about linking to their content.
Now, I have no idea how enforcement or notice would work in this system. It could have a lot of pit falls. But given the state of print publications and the race to the bottom with online print publications, I think it is time to try to make these content aggregators like reddit, Google and Facebook to pay someone for the content they profit from simply by hosting a link.
|
A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda.
https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/
As far as I understand it this very comment you are reading will be illegal under the new legistlation, because I did not acquire the right to publish this snipped from the original publisher, Julia Reda.
|
Criminally illegal? Or would Julia Reda have the ability to request the link be taken down?
|
On September 13 2018 06:19 Big J wrote:A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/As far as I understand it this very comment you are reading will be illegal under the new legistlation, because I did not acquire the right to publish this snipped from the original publisher, Julia Reda.
I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply.
This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
