WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
4
AskMatrix - - (+3|-0)
What would happen if we set a maximum wage for government employees?(self)
7 commentsbyx0x7

Has any country or municipality tried this before that you are aware of? Is this something that is needed? Could we ever get Congress to pass such a thing? What are the pro's and con's? Is there any way this could backfire?

Comment preview

[-]be_incorrigible2(+2|0)

What if we didn't pay elected officials anything, You know, like it used to be? Bet they would still become millionaires somehow....

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x71(+1|0)

That would be a good idea. Then it would be more obvious. I've always been for not being able to do even a small favor for them like taking them out to dinner or even giving them a stick of gum. They also shouldn't be able to own speculative properties like real estate or stock.

The very scary thing is they are far richer off of paper. Let's say you are a foreign entity. You can pay them an infinite number of under the table ways abroad but getting the money back to the US is the traceable part. So you just don't do that. Or you only bother to move 1/10 the money. So they have 10x the money waiting for them elsewhere.

The Arabs in particular have this practice of black banking where instead of having banks they just have a large network of who owes who and it works. It's social technology. With such a system any amount of money can be given to someone without it ever touching a bank account.

parentlinkreply
[-]NiggerPete1(+1|0)

This but with manufacturing is why healthcare is handled by employers.

pay should be based on some corporate average rate

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x71(+1|0)

I think I sort of get you. I guess I don't know the details. So it has something to do with unions and max pay?

Commies can't ever let something be as simple as a free market, even when the adjustment only makes things worse.

Commies: "Historically it was bad when employers provided housing because they could always yank your housing when they fire you."

Also Commies: "I shouldn't be expected to optionally buy healthcare with the income I receive. My employer should do that for me!"

Someone make them make sense. The only consistency is being angry at what is and having an assumption that complicating it and adding restrictions will automatically make it better.

parentlinkreply
[-]Theodore_Kent1(+1|0)

"My employer should do that for me!"

During WWII, there was very limited male labor supply in the US, cuz Hitler 'n' shiiieet.

But corporations and employers still wanted labor, so they began increasing wages to try to attract men from other jobs, cuz Free Market 'n' Shieeet.

This caused a lot of wage inflation, which the Jews in the congress and Federal Reserve did not want at the time, so they passed the Stabilization Act of 1942, which froze wages in order to attempt to combat it.

Since employers could no longer offer increased salaries, they needed to offer additional benefits to attract more of the limited labor pool at the time, so they started offering shit like health insurance and pensions instead of wage increases.

This was the origin of health insurance being paired with jobs in the US, and everything retarded about the health insurance industry sprang forth from that.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x71(+1|0)

Huh. I never knew that. Makes sense. They are always introducing problems just to keep wages low.

parentlinkreply