Gas Bandit's Political Thread III

[GasBandit]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread Update - Huge Gigantic Font Edition

So Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen made from the wood of a british Anti-slavery ship. And Obama gave him a box set of 25 "great american movie" DVDs... in NTSC format, which means they won't play on british DVD players.

Oh, but not to be outdone, Hillary had to do TWO foreign affairs gaffes. Not only did she inadvertently insult the Russian PM with the gift of an "overcharge" button (it was supposed to be a "reset" button, to show it was time to start our relations over on the right foot, but the translation got screwed up), but then she goes to brussels and tells europe that American democracy predates European democracy.

You know if the above happened to Bush and Condi, the media would literally be eating them alive at this moment.

Seems there's a little bit of a hissyfit going on between Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

A great Thomas Sowell column .. just chock full o' common sense. Try this sentence: "Why should taxpayers who live in apartments, perhaps because they did not feel that they could afford to buy a house, be forced to subsidize other people who could not afford to buy a house but who went ahead and bought one anyway?" Why indeed?

The Supreme Court ruled against the expansion of protection for minorities under the federal voting rights law. Clearly a racist court.

Wikipedia won't be putting up with any controversy in their glowing, loving article on Barack Obama.

There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

This ought to get the wealth-envy crowd going ... a Facebook for the filthy, evil, scum-filled rich.



Let's wrap it up with a great quote -
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

So Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen made from the wood of a british Anti-slavery ship. And Obama gave him a box set of 25 "great american movie" DVDs... in NTSC format, which means they won't play on british DVD players.

Not completely true. Almost all dvd players will play both PAL and NTSC. The problem is more that most players are region locked to not be able to play Region 1 (North America) discs. Which a simple google will fix (not sure about the legality of it, but it can be done). The next one however...

Oh, but not to be outdone, Hillary had to do TWO foreign affairs gaffes. Not only did she inadvertently insult the Russian PM with the gift of an "overcharge" button (it was supposed to be a "reset" button, to show it was time to start our relations over on the right foot, but the translation got screwed up), but then she goes to brussels and tells europe that American democracy predates European democracy.

Yeah...
Wow.

 

[Covar]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

Seems there's a little bit of a hissyfit going on between Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

:aaahhh:

 

[Lamont]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

I spend most of my forum time on the Tenth Planet sub-section of the Doctor Who Forum. And I suddenly realised that Gas Bandit's head would explode if he ever went there.

Probably. I can't stand doctor who fanboyism in progress.

Oh we never talk about Doctor Who in the Tenth Planet.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

I spend most of my forum time on the Tenth Planet sub-section of the Doctor Who Forum. And I suddenly realised that Gas Bandit's head would explode if he ever went there.

Probably. I can't stand doctor who fanboyism in progress.

Oh we never talk about Doctor Who in the Tenth Planet.

I don't find that hard to believe, actually... because they seem to talk about Dr. Who EVERYWHERE ELSE IN EXISTENCE CONSTANTLY so the fanbois must have run dry for a subforum

 

[Iaculus]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

Oh, but not to be outdone, Hillary had to do TWO foreign affairs gaffes. Not only did she inadvertently insult the Russian PM with the gift of an "overcharge" button (it was supposed to be a "reset" button, to show it was time to start our relations over on the right foot, but the translation got screwed up), but then she goes to brussels and tells europe that American democracy predates European democracy.

Oy. She does seem particularly prone to gaffes where Europe is concerned - remember the snipers?

 

[Lamont]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

Oh we never talk about Doctor Who in the Tenth Planet.

I don't find that hard to believe, actually... because they seem to talk about Dr. Who EVERYWHERE ELSE IN EXISTENCE CONSTANTLY so the fanbois must have run dry for a subforum

Right. My point, though I realise this was impossible to decipher without prior knowledge, is that the Tenth Planet is the Current Affairs, Real World and Politics sub-section of the Doctor Who Forum. We're our own little world, basically. And TP leans a lot to the left these days. Wasn't always so, but for the last three, four years, whoo, that place would make you cry tears of blood.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

Oh we never talk about Doctor Who in the Tenth Planet.

I don't find that hard to believe, actually... because they seem to talk about Dr. Who EVERYWHERE ELSE IN EXISTENCE CONSTANTLY so the fanbois must have run dry for a subforum

Right. My point, though I realise this was impossible to decipher without prior knowledge, is that the Tenth Planet is the Current Affairs, Real World and Politics sub-section of the Doctor Who Forum. We're our own little world, basically. And TP leans a lot to the left these days. Wasn't always so, but for the last three, four years, whoo, that place would make you cry tears of blood.

An uncle of mine ran for city council as a libertarian in the 90s. At the time, few actually knew what a libertarian was. We met somebody who actually voted for him... the guy was an absolute socialist. As we revealed to him the nature of Libertarianism, he became more and more horrified. He actually said at one point that it should be the government's responsibility to mow his lawn.

My tears of blood are all dried up.

 

[TheBrew]

Oh, but not to be outdone, Hillary had to do TWO foreign affairs gaffes. Not only did she inadvertently insult the Russian PM with the gift of an "overcharge" button (it was supposed to be a "reset" button, to show it was time to start our relations over on the right foot, but the translation got screwed up), but then she goes to brussels and tells europe that American democracy predates European democracy.

Well, she covered for the first gaffe gracefully and who the fuck cares about Greece's quasi-democracy from 2,000 years ago? America was the first modern-Democracy, which is what she was referencing.

Wikipedia won't be putting up with any controversy in their glowing, loving article on Barack Obama.

Yes, because removing the ridiculous questions about his citizenship is them removing all controversy. Wikipedia doesn't need more stupid, tyvm.

There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

Tit-for-tat hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will not work. You can't go around being a dick just because the other guy did it. I guess the failure to understand that is why some people are pro-torture.

 

[GasBandit]

Oh, but not to be outdone, Hillary had to do TWO foreign affairs gaffes. Not only did she inadvertently insult the Russian PM with the gift of an "overcharge" button (it was supposed to be a "reset" button, to show it was time to start our relations over on the right foot, but the translation got screwed up), but then she goes to brussels and tells europe that American democracy predates European democracy.

Well, she covered for the first gaffe gracefully and who the fuck cares about Greece's quasi-democracy from 2,000 years ago? America was the first modern-Democracy, which is what she was referencing.

Wikipedia won't be putting up with any controversy in their glowing, loving article on Barack Obama.

Yes, because removing the ridiculous questions about his citizenship is them removing all controversy. Wikipedia doesn't need more stupid, tyvm.

[quote:1z167wqt]
There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

Tit-for-tat hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will not work. You can't go around being a dick just because the other guy did it. I guess the failure to understand that is why some people are pro-torture.[/quote:1z167wqt]

 

[Covar]

Oh, but not to be outdone, Hillary had to do TWO foreign affairs gaffes. Not only did she inadvertently insult the Russian PM with the gift of an "overcharge" button (it was supposed to be a "reset" button, to show it was time to start our relations over on the right foot, but the translation got screwed up), but then she goes to brussels and tells europe that American democracy predates European democracy.

Well, she covered for the first gaffe gracefully and who the boop cares about Greece's quasi-democracy from 2,000 years ago? ...

The Greeks.

There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

Tit-for-tat hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will not work. You can't go around being a * just because the other guy did it. I guess the failure to understand that is why some people are pro-torture.

Yea, because Rush made his statement based on the results of a 2006 poll. :eyeroll: But of course those poll results are perfectly kosher, not like those obscene comments by Rush.

 

[Troll]

Oh, but not to be outdone, Hillary had to do TWO foreign affairs gaffes. Not only did she inadvertently insult the Russian PM with the gift of an "overcharge" button (it was supposed to be a "reset" button, to show it was time to start our relations over on the right foot, but the translation got screwed up), but then she goes to brussels and tells europe that American democracy predates European democracy.

Well, she covered for the first gaffe gracefully and who the boop cares about Greece's quasi-democracy from 2,000 years ago? ...

The Greeks.

And the Romans. And Europe in general. And anyone with half a brain who wants our representatives to not sound like gibbering morons when speaking to heads of state.

 

[Dieb]

Wikipedia won't be putting up with any controversy in their glowing, loving article on Barack Obama.

Oh man, I read a refutation of that just minuites before coming here! Ha. Anyway, as it turns out, Wikipedia maintains a whole seperate page on Obama conspiracy theories. There's a link from the main Obama page to it. But because they do HAVE a different page on it, they want all discussion of that crazyness on that page instead of the main Obama page. Obviously.

There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

In 2006, Bush's presidency already WAS a giant failure But more seriously, do you remember any actual leaders of the Democratic party publically hoping that Bush was a failure in early 2001? I sure as hell don't.

 

[Futureking]

There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

In 2006, Bush's presidency already WAS a giant failure But more seriously, do you remember any actual leaders of the Democratic party publically hoping that Bush was a failure in early 2001? I sure as * don't.

Emphasis on "publically"

 

[Krisken]

There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

In 2006, Bush's presidency already WAS a giant failure But more seriously, do you remember any actual leaders of the Democratic party publically hoping that Bush was a failure in early 2001? I sure as * don't.

Emphasis on "publically"[/quote]
And?

 

[Futureking]

There's a lot of flapping of gums going on about who "wants Obama to fail." Just a little flashback for you ... back in 2006, more than half of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

In 2006, Bush's presidency already WAS a giant failure But more seriously, do you remember any actual leaders of the Democratic party publically hoping that Bush was a failure in early 2001? I sure as * don't.

Emphasis on "publically"

And?

Face it. Political parties want each other to screw up to look good in front of the voters, regardless of whether they make their wishes public or not. That's politics.

 

[Espy]

The entire discussion of "wanting someone's policies to fail or not" is retarded.
Good grief.

 

[GasBandit]

According to a report from Judicial Watch, Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly requested military aircraft and treated the Air Force as her "personal airline."

The unionization-by-intimidation bill was finally introduced yesterday. Harry Reid says that he expects to get the 60 votes needed to pass the card check bill, but that Republicans are just "saying no to everything" and that is not the way to move this country forward. Funny, wasn't that shoe on the other foot 6 years ago? But what happens as soon as the card check bill is introduced? Analysts start downgrading WalMart's stock. In many ways this is an anti-Wal-Mart bill.

The majority of Americans (53%) believe that America is headed for a depression within the next few years.

Nancy Pelosi says that she is open to a second stimulus bill. Oy.

Harry Reid says that the Fairness Doctrine is a "ghost that doesn't exist." We're being sandbagged on this one. I'll be along in a few months with an "I told you so."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has said it is concerned about its noted liberal bias and is trying to "become more fair." Or perhaps more solvent.

Remember that DC voucher program that was letting poor kids attend better schools? Yeah, the democrats went ahead and killed it, just like I said they would.

 

[Espy]

Wasn't there a big flap with Pelosi trying to abuse her plane privileges right when she took over? Lady has some power issues.

 

[Krisken]

The entire discussion of "wanting someone's policies to fail or not" is retarded.
Good grief.

Yup, it is.

 

[Espy]

The entire discussion of "wanting someone's policies to fail or not" is retarded.
Good grief.

Yup, it is.

OMG WE AGREE.

 

[Covar]

Wasn't there a big flap with Pelosi trying to abuse her plane privileges right when she took over? Lady has some power issues.

Its all Legal. But considering their ragging companies and citizens with private planes, extremely hypocritical.

 

[Krisken]

The entire discussion of "wanting someone's policies to fail or not" is retarded.
Good grief.

Yup, it is.

OMG WE AGREE.

Why so surprised? I thought it was a stupid argument back in 2001 when people disagreed with Bush and they were called unpatriotic. People should be allowed to disagree, that's the point of democracy. Through the discussion (not argument) of different ideas the best ideas should be allowed to rise for the betterment of the nation.

 

[Espy]

Wasn't there a big flap with Pelosi trying to abuse her plane privileges right when she took over? Lady has some power issues.

Its all Legal. But considering their ragging companies and citizens with private planes, extremely hypocritical.

Totally, it is legal. You are absolutely right though, it's typical power mad politicians who say "Do as I say, not as I do!"

 

[Lamont]

The entire discussion of "wanting someone's policies to fail or not" is retarded.
Good grief.

Surely the discussion is about the fact that for years Coulter and her gang shrilled that criticising the President was a treasonable offense, and now it's a patriotic duty? At least I hope it is. Because of course you can "want someone's policies to fail" until your nipples turn blue, that's no skin off anyone's nose.

 

[Espy]

The entire discussion of "wanting someone's policies to fail or not" is retarded.
Good grief.

Surely the discussion is about the fact that for years Coulter and her gang shrilled that criticising the President was a treasonable offense, and now it's a patriotic duty? At least I hope it is. Because of course you can "want someone's policies to fail" until your nipples turn blue, that's no skin off anyone's nose.

If you want to talk about PUNDITS yelling and screaming about something stupid then get your rocks and your glass houses ready. Here's a clue: They all do that. It's their job to scream and call foul on BOTH sides.
Again, it's a stupid discussion and it just reveals the hypocrisy on both sides that we all know is there so who cares?

 

[JONJONAUG]

Let's wrap it up with a great quote -
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers

Wow, what a load of bullshit (although a lot of stuff that guy said was a load of bullshit).

The government cannot continue to fairly finance itself by keeping equal tax rates for everyone when 10% of the population controls 71% of the wealth and the top 1% controls more than a third of the wealth in the nation. A good deal of the welfare that you're complaining about wouldn't be necessary if employers were fair about their distribution of company profits in their wages. You are not "legislating the wealthy out of freedom"

 

[strawman]

A good deal of the welfare that you're complaining about wouldn't be necessary if employers were fair about their distribution of company profits in their wages.

But what is fair? To capitalists, "fair" is what the market will bear. Obviously the employees are fine with their wages, therefore they are receiving a fair wage.

-Adam

 

[Troll]

A good deal of the welfare that you're complaining about wouldn't be necessary if employers were fair about their distribution of company profits in their wages.

But what is fair? To capitalists, "fair" is what the market will bear. Obviously the employees are fine with their wages, therefore they are receiving a fair wage.

-Adam

What about situations where a worker is desperate for a wage in order to pay for essentials, but is stuck with a crappy low paying job? I'm not talking about high school dropouts lamenting their lot in life after making a dumb decision, but rather the well trained worker who's laid off from his job and forced to take a crappy wage just to get by. It's not unheard of.

So, if we assume that there are times when people are not being paid fairly (which I do), do you think that Jon's point has more merit?

 

[strawman]

A good deal of the welfare that you're complaining about wouldn't be necessary if employers were fair about their distribution of company profits in their wages.

But what is fair? To capitalists, "fair" is what the market will bear. Obviously the employees are fine with their wages, therefore they are receiving a fair wage.

-Adam

What about situations where a worker is desperate for a wage in order to pay for essentials, but is stuck with a crappy low paying job? I'm not talking about high school dropouts lamenting their lot in life after making a dumb decision, but rather the well trained worker who's laid off from his job and forced to take a crappy wage just to get by. It's not unheard of.

So, if we assume that there are times when people are not being paid fairly (which I do), do you think that Jon's point has more merit?

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that since there are a few people who aren't able, for whatever reason, to get the money the market says they are worth, then we must change the economy for everyone?

Isn't there a fallacy in there?

Further, if they aren't able to, in a given economy, get more money, then aren't they being paid what the market will bear?

The definition seems to 'float' with the supposed problem.

If they are 'forced' to get a crummy job to make ends meet, well, they are taking a job which is paying less because it isn't a good fit for their skills - that isn't the company's fault. Are you saying that if I'm laid off here, and get a technician position rather than the engineering position I am qualified for, that the company must then give me an engineer's salary because I wasn't able to find a better fit - in other words I wasn't able to find the right bidder for my time?

-Adam

 

[Troll]

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that since there are a few people who aren't able, for whatever reason, to get the money the market says they are worth, then we must change the economy for everyone?

Isn't there a fallacy in there?

Further, if they aren't able to, in a given economy, get more money, then aren't they being paid what the market will bear?

The definition seems to 'float' with the supposed problem.

If they are 'forced' to get a crummy job to make ends meet, well, they are taking a job which is paying less because it isn't a good fit for their skills - that isn't the company's fault. Are you saying that if I'm laid off here, and get a technician position rather than the engineering position I am qualified for, that the company must then give me an engineer's salary because I wasn't able to find a better fit - in other words I wasn't able to find the right bidder for my time?

-Adam

Hmm. I concede your point.

I just would like a society where people are paid an amount that accurately corresponds to both their skills and effort. If you're smart and working your ass off, you should be compensated for it. I'm switching topics here, but what I was objecting to (and I think Jon is as well) is that sometimes people are able to become wildly overpaid while others don't get nearly enough for what they do. And while I'm at it, let's get the personal bias out of the way: I'm a teacher. On average teachers should be paid more. District administrators should be paid less. That's an ideal example of an unfair wage disparity. So, in order to alleviate situations like that, I would like more government involvement in leveling the playing field. I don't want socialism, I want people to be rewarded for talent and hard work. I just don't want people to land in cushy jobs and get paid ridiculous amounts of money while so many others slave away for peanuts.

(Yes, I'm getting off topic. I think I just went way more into philosophy than the actual issue at hand. Seriously, feel free to ignore this if I've wandered too far. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm juggling a lot of things right now.)

 

[Espy]

I just would like a society where people are paid an amount that accurately corresponds to both their skills and effort. If you're smart and working your a** off, you should be compensated for it.

I agree. That's why I think minimum wage should be 5 bucks an hour. I don't care who you are, if you are working at McDonalds flipping burgers they shouldn't be forced to pay you more than you are worth.
And yes, I've done that job. And it's worth about 5 bucks an hour.

 

[JONJONAUG]

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that since there are a few people who aren't able, for whatever reason, to get the money the market says they are worth, then we must change the economy for everyone?

Isn't there a fallacy in there?

Further, if they aren't able to, in a given economy, get more money, then aren't they being paid what the market will bear?

The definition seems to 'float' with the supposed problem.

If they are 'forced' to get a crummy job to make ends meet, well, they are taking a job which is paying less because it isn't a good fit for their skills - that isn't the company's fault. Are you saying that if I'm laid off here, and get a technician position rather than the engineering position I am qualified for, that the company must then give me an engineer's salary because I wasn't able to find a better fit - in other words I wasn't able to find the right bidder for my time?

-Adam

Hmm. I concede your point.

I just would like a society where people are paid an amount that accurately corresponds to both their skills and effort. If you're smart and working your ass off, you should be compensated for it. I'm switching topics here, but what I was objecting to (and I think Jon is as well) is that sometimes people are able to become wildly overpaid while others don't get nearly enough for what they do. And while I'm at it, let's get the personal bias out of the way: I'm a teacher. On average teachers should be paid more. District administrators should be paid less. That's an ideal example of an unfair wage disparity. So, in order to alleviate situations like that, I would like more government involvement in leveling the playing field. I don't want socialism, I want people to be rewarded for talent and hard work. I just don't want people to land in cushy jobs and get paid ridiculous amounts of money while so many others slave away for peanuts.

(Yes, I'm getting off topic. I think I just went way more into philosophy than the actual issue at hand. Seriously, feel free to ignore this if I've wandered too far. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm juggling a lot of things right now.)

Pretty much this, although I don't think that government should be directly involved in fair wage setting (although in your case, since you're a public school teacher, it should). I think companies should be responsible enough to keep a proper playing field and not wildly overpay people higher in the hierarchy.

 

[Troll]

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that since there are a few people who aren't able, for whatever reason, to get the money the market says they are worth, then we must change the economy for everyone?

Isn't there a fallacy in there?

Further, if they aren't able to, in a given economy, get more money, then aren't they being paid what the market will bear?

The definition seems to 'float' with the supposed problem.

If they are 'forced' to get a crummy job to make ends meet, well, they are taking a job which is paying less because it isn't a good fit for their skills - that isn't the company's fault. Are you saying that if I'm laid off here, and get a technician position rather than the engineering position I am qualified for, that the company must then give me an engineer's salary because I wasn't able to find a better fit - in other words I wasn't able to find the right bidder for my time?

-Adam

Hmm. I concede your point.

I just would like a society where people are paid an amount that accurately corresponds to both their skills and effort. If you're smart and working your ass off, you should be compensated for it. I'm switching topics here, but what I was objecting to (and I think Jon is as well) is that sometimes people are able to become wildly overpaid while others don't get nearly enough for what they do. And while I'm at it, let's get the personal bias out of the way: I'm a teacher. On average teachers should be paid more. District administrators should be paid less. That's an ideal example of an unfair wage disparity. So, in order to alleviate situations like that, I would like more government involvement in leveling the playing field. I don't want socialism, I want people to be rewarded for talent and hard work. I just don't want people to land in cushy jobs and get paid ridiculous amounts of money while so many others slave away for peanuts.

(Yes, I'm getting off topic. I think I just went way more into philosophy than the actual issue at hand. Seriously, feel free to ignore this if I've wandered too far. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm juggling a lot of things right now.)

Pretty much this, although I don't think that government should be directly involved in fair wage setting (although in your case, since you're a public school teacher, it should). I think companies should be responsible enough to keep a proper playing field and not wildly overpay people higher in the hierarchy.

I don't think government should be involved in setting wages for non-government work as well. I think minimums are good as well. When I said "level the playing field" I was thinking more in terms of social services and tax systems.

 

[strawman]

Hmm. I concede your point.

I'm sure someone will refute my point tomorrow - there's certain to be flaws one could drive a truck though.

I just would like a society where people are paid an amount that accurately corresponds to both their skills and effort. If you're smart and working your a** off, you should be compensated for it. I'm switching topics here, but what I was objecting to (and I think Jon is as well) is that sometimes people are able to become wildly overpaid while others don't get nearly enough for what they do.

Yeah, there's a value proposition. On the other hand, there's a risk factor that must be taken into account. If I take the risk and invest in 10-20 properties right now, which seems like a good deal, I will get, in 5-10 years, a 100 to 1,000% return on my investment - or I will lose everything if one little detail goes wrong.

Those who start a company risk a lot, and invest a lot, and 90%+ of them fail and lose their investment - but of the few who make it, some make it big.

They took a big risk, but didn't actually put much effort (relative to the payoff) into the company.

Honestly, if it weren't possible to become fabulously wealthy with a new design or insight and a lot of risk, we wouldn't have much of the technology that we have now. We'd only have technology developed at institutions, and as great as Bell Labs was, many, many technologies have come out that would never have survived in that environment.

And while I'm at it, let's get the personal bias out of the way: I'm a teacher. On average teachers should be paid more. District administrators should be paid less. That's an ideal example of an unfair wage disparity.

This particular wage disparity results from two factors, as far as I can tell:

1) Lots of people would like to be teachers, especially if it paid well
2) People like to pay lower taxes

As long as we have publicly funded schools, and a surplus of teachers, we can't improve pay without instituting some form of socialization. Capitalism fails here because the value (well educated children) are long term valuable to the society, but not short term valuable - you can't immediately get the 'interest' from the 'investment', so no one is willing to invest.

So, in order to alleviate situations like that, I would like more government involvement in leveling the playing field. I don't want socialism, I want people to be rewarded for talent and hard work. I just don't want people to land in cushy jobs and get paid ridiculous amounts of money while so many others slave away for peanuts.

Well, I think that one of the things that's going to have to happen, if you want people paid according to their hard work, effort, and skill, is that those who aren't performing relative to their peers must get less pay. This will have the effect of making the pool of teachers (see point 1 above) smaller, which will then push pay up overall despite the pressure 2 exerts.

Actuaries make a great deal of money, but the actuarial society limits the number of actuaries going into the field every year - they score the tests on a curve so only the top x% become full actuaries a year, regardless of the number of applicants. This artificially keeps the pay high without gov't intervention. Further actuaries have to keep up on their skills and continue learning - you can lose your certification, so slackers are culled later on even if they pass initially.

I think part of the problem is that there are so many poorly performing teachers that like the status quo, despite their low pay, that they won't let the schools and unions cut out the fat and hire better teachers.

Measuring effort, skill, and such is a really, really hard problem to solve, though.

-Adam