RedDenver

A lot to respond to: Guy and Big Red 40 have already addressed this, but there's an inherent assumption throughout everything you're saying here that somehow becoming a CEO is based on the cream rising to the top. However: An uncomfortable view on what really makes a CEO successful And I think you're under estimating it. From the link above: Do you have supporting evidence? Big Red 40 gave a good reply. Without the players (the workers), the HC (CEO) can't win or even play the game. And if you think recruiting and talent matter a lot to football, then that means the players matter even more. Also I'm not claiming that there aren't exceptionally CEO's, just that they aren't that exceptional on average compared to their workers relative to the difference in pay. Using your example, Scott Frost or Nick Saban are a good examples of paying a premium for an exceptional CEO, but look at how much guys like Ferentz, Riley, Dooley, etc. make. Across CFB, do we really think those HC are worth that much more than their players?

CEO's, execs, and share holders are also easily replaceable. So what? Wages aren't always dictated by supply and demand, look at unregulated markets with monopolies for an example. But even if they were, do we want a society that determines the basic dignity of our people to live and work based on what market forces do? Think about the times capitalism has collapsed (or any economic system for that matter) and the horrible effects on us.

I know most companies aren't co-ops, I'm saying that co-ops are one solution, which we aren't currently making enough use of. And I didn't say executives and managers don't exist at co-ops. I'm not saying CEO's and execs don't work hard, but rather that they don't work hundreds or thousands of times harder than the workers. And worker co-ops, some of which have CEO's and execs that are hired by the workers, show that "the time of the CEOs and executives" aren't necessarily "far far more valuable than that of the average worker".

If you do that, will you quit complaining about firemen salaries?

Didn't the tOSU players get 5 game suspension for getting free tattoos? And Urb only gets 3?

I provided 3 examples. As for Denmark, every country goes through economic highs and lows, so if you want to claim it's the "non-producers" that are causing this low then you'll need evidence and a way to show it's not other confounding factors. Here's a look at their GDP performance with the drop in 2017 highlighted, which shows that they have some up and down like every economy: However, their unempoyment rate is dropping and their projected growth over the next year is 2%, so it's not looking too bad.

The coaching staff took it out a few days back.

Puts the lie to the statement that Urban didn't lie.

None of that addresses the original point that a minimum wage is an easy place to start on income inequality. You made some claims about how it doesn't work, and I showed some examples of it working. We can look across a whole bunch of different countries to see how their economic policies both do and don't work; Denmark was just one I had read an article about and could find again easily.

One thing that has only been talked about a little is that Martinez may not yet be back from his injury.

That's what I was thinking. It'll be interesting if the feds conduct a Title IX investigation.

The lines are imaginary and they matter. I believe borders do matter, but I understand that they're just a concept of dividing human societies up geographically. I also believe being at the birth of one's child is far more important than whether someone lives on one side or the other of that border. Time enough to decide whether they should get to stay or have to go after the birth has been attended and the child is cared for.

Denmark's cost of living is about 30% higher than the US, so you don't have to imagine it. However, Denmark's poverty rates are much lower, so you're claim of still not having livable wages is untrue:

The idea that minimum wage is not effective in a market driven economy isn't true. Prices may go up, but the question is really are the higher prices worth having living wages. A few examples: The federal minimum wage has been around since 1938, and the US economy remained the strongest in the world from then until now, including the post-WW2 era of incredible middle-class growth, so it can't be that harmful to the economy. Research shows $15 California minimum wage has big impact on pay, none on jobs. Fast-food workers paid $20/hour in Denmark as compared to $8.60 in US (133% increase), but McDonald's Big Mac price only $5.60 vs $4.80 (only 17% increase). (Also note that Denmark has no minimum wage law but instead very strong unions that bargain for these wages, so minimum wage laws aren't the only way.)

There's a bunch of different types of co-ops around the world. Here's list from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives The largest where the workers own the corporation (worker co-op) that I'm aware of is the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. (75,000 workers, $12 billion in annual revenue and $24 billion in assets.) There aren't a lot of worker co-ops in the US, but you can find listings of American worker co-ops through the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives. Ace Hardware is an American co-op you've probably heard of, but it's a slightly different version where each store owner is a share holder (as opposed to every worker).

Oh ffs, you understand the difference between the physical and the abstract, don't you? Or do you think there's real lines drawn on the earth and sea?

That's not what I asked.

You know that co-ops exist, right? Proving that if you eliminate the share holders (by making them one and the same with the workers), companies can and do keep functioning and making profits. Do the workers not work their butts off? Tell me again about how profitable those companies would be with CEO's but not workers because there exist companies (again co-ops come first to mind) without CEO's.

I guess some of us have some humanity and recognize that which side of an imaginary line you're living on isn't as important as the birth of your children. And as for the rest of the rant, I've said several times that if there was a warrant for his arrest, then I'm ok with them arresting him, so you can stop with the strawman.

So no, you can't define it, I guess.

What? Companies can and do exist without share holders. EDIT: Additionally, share holders are extracting profits from a company, not the other way around.

Do I need to now ask you to define "actual economists"?

Labor that contributes to the profits of a company. Tell me all about how share holders are providing labor that generates profits for the corporation. I can't wait.

Except no one actually said that. The argument is over whether there was a warrant or not. And note how Ric attempts to deflect from the consequences of missing the birth of his son with the word "inconvenienced".

That's a GREAT question. If we knew the answer, we'd probably be using it. However, we know just from the history of the US economy that from WW2 to the 1970's, there was far, far less income inequality than today. That's at least a start. And we know from other nations what less has resulted in less income inequality in places like Sweden, Netherlands, etc. and I think even Britain and Germany are less than the US. And I think an easy policy place to start is a minimum wage that prevents the worst of the inequality.