US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

The employee has wage making power. this is why some get $30,000,000 a year.

 

Let's go orthodox: diminishing marginal utility of income.

 

"The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."

John F. Kennedy

 

?????

 

You're not even aware of the basics? Gosh!

 

I'm not a fake libertarian, so I'm assuming your diatribe doesn't concern me.

 

You' as you've freely admitted, don't bother with economics.

 

So what?

 

So you are irrelevant.

 

As are you, my friend.

 

In the grand scheme of things, yes. But, unlike you, I can refer to economics and I don't suffer an ideology that insists otherwise.

 

Yes, you can refer to lots of stuff, but you don't really say anything do you?

 

Given you don't do economics, how would you know?

 

<yawn> What good is a "labor economics" that ignores the forcible removal of working people's options, and the requirement that they pay landowners full market value just for PERMISSION to work, hmmmmmmmmm?

 

It is you who actually doesn't know economics.

 

You continue to give Georgist rant and rave. Without understanding of labour, you neither have understanding of economic outcome or firm success. Imagine a macro model that doesn't model labour? Imagine a theory of the firm that doesn't include labour relations? It doesn't matter what element of the history of economic thought we focus on- classical, neoclassical, heterodox- understanding labour is key.

And, when a school of thought gets their understanding of labour wrong, look at the consequences. Take the Austrians. They have no comprehension of monopsonistic power, making their reference to coercion look decidedly child-like. Unsurprisingly, the school's influence on the discipline is minimal.

 

You continue to falsely claim my comment is Georgist when it is not.

I understand labor far better than "labor economists" who ignore the forcible removal of workers' rights to liberty to be made into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners.

Imagine one that models it incorrectly by ignoring the requirement that workers pay the privileged full market value just for permission to work.

Imagine one that includes it incorrectly by ignoring the requirement that workers pay the privileged full market value just for permission to work.

And is IMPOSSIBLE without accounting for the forcible removal of workers' rights to liberty to be made into the private property of the privileged.

Yes, and look at all the schools that utterly failed to predict the GFC. NONE of them accounted for the removal of workers' liberty rights by the privileged.

 

I appreciate your need to deny it. We've agreed on that.

HAHAHAHA! You think you know more than the experts because of your Georgism.

I'm not letting you off the hook. Imagine a macro model that doesn't model labour? Imagine a theory of the firm that doesn't include labour relations?

We already know your Georgism is tosh!

 

Don't certifications, licencing, and taxes do that already?

 

He does support standard neoclassical regulation!

 

Because it is false.

Yes, we've agreed your claim is false: you claim I am a Georgist because it is false, and I deny it for the exact same reason.

No, I don't know more, just understand better. Similarly, I don't know more about homeopathy than practitioners of homeopathy, but I do understand it better.

You've never had me on any hook.

What do you even incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

Have you been drinking? What theory of the firm?

We already know your claims of my Georgism are tosh, that's why you always have to make them: to avoid the actual issues.

 

To a far lesser degree, sure.

 

And that is the nature of the Georgist argument!

 

Do what?

Try quoting when you reply to a post ...

 

Click on "Show ignored content" to see who was being quoted and what the post contained.