I was misinformed on any countries actually having a Maximum wage (although its been voted on in some countries and hotly debated with the Wage gap increasing), but my argument is still the same as it has been since the beginning.
The countries were just to show that it wasn’t just my feelings, as much as you wanted to feel.
I should have instead linked this prior link, and not just read surface level on Google. Again, my statement doesn’t change though.
I’m not but again you can’t read that well. Median worker is the worker in the middle. Not the lowest, not the highest. Maybe instead of taking all those law classes a basic stats class would have helped.
Not particularly, as the “but it COULD happen” part of your hypo is even more insubstantial as the rest of the many assumptions.
What other countries have tried doesn’t absolve YOU of having concrete reasons for doing something. If you want to just hitch your argument to what other countries might have stated, by all means, but it just makes this conversation even funnier.
So you discard low wage earners entirely. A lot of minimum wage and near-minimum wage work is pretty easy to outsource, which would avoid employee calculations, since contract work is inherently tallied differently.
Plus, reiterating my previous point: that extra money need not show up in any direct means that benefit the employees. A corporation could accept the cap, and simply make concerted board decisions within the laws of the state to invest money elsewhere that still benefits board members and shareholders, but not the corporation itself.
Capping CEO salaries, if it were to ever come to pass, simply creates a new hurdle for corporate attorneys to clear to ensure as much money stays within the corporation, for the corporation’s benefit. Employees are practically never part of that equation, ever.
This statement actually makes no sense. I’ve said that I’m not an entire country?
In my singular example yes. But thankfully laws don’t have to be so simple or limited.
There’s already outsource limitations.
You can go around all day with this stuff. Simply put again, in a theory, it does pass. Without all the extra stuff you so desperately want to add. Again, its a theory. It almost has passed in modern day times so its not as impossible as you dramatically concluded either.
Or some could comply with the new regulations and still live a great life. Employers comply with minimum wage and other labor laws, what makes this an exemption all of a sudden if it were to pass?
Sorry that you can’t see past the scope of reality. Just because something is a law or not regulated doesn’t mean its right either.
You completely miss the entirety of my point. You’re so caught up in whatever the courts do you can’t see past them. Try to think outside the box! Imagine the courts work in whatever favor needs to happen for higher employee earnings, would games maybe be better, employee’s happier?
You keep relying on “other countries did it so I’m not doing it cuz feelings” which isn’t actually a logical inference.
In no US jurisdiction can you dictate the number or kind of employees you hire/fire based on job type or salary type.
It almost, but failed to pass, in countries with far and away more authoritarian legal regimes than the US. This isn’t even a reach at this point, it is entirely out of the realm of possibilities.
You can comply with new laws and still screw low wage laborers. I’m not sure how you’re not getting this.
Wrong. Filing status is affected by many of these things. Not “dictated” but heavily considered and is the reasoning for shell corporations and what not.
Here you are being a drama queen again. This is the 21st century. Times are changing. The Wage gap is a real thing, and discussed too. Why else would they be vetting this in countries now a days?
Again, you can go around all day. Of course nothing is infallible. But the system in place now isn’t working much better.
Else we wouldn’t have forum post like this. Would we?
This is the only answer necessary. If it isn’t enforced or dictated, the any “strong suggestion” is as useful as no suggestion at all.
“Its current year!” isn’t an argument.
We’d still have this forum post, you’d unnecessarily increase legal fees for in-house attorneys, and you’d subject random small corporations to rather strict liabilities because they overpaid themselves according to whatever dumb metric is concocted.
Small businesses would suffer, large corporations would avoid problems entirely, and low income workers would still be scrapping by with a terrible quality of life trying to live in California.
I am. And without the bite of legal liability, any suggestion to do something will simply be ignored. If “rational people act rationally” was some sort of useful concept on which we could rely, you wouldn’t need new legislation in the first place, but rather just strongly suggest CEOs and Board of Directors be more generous to their lowest paid employees.
There’s nothing to motivate them to do so in the market or from the law, so they don’t, and the US Courts expressly stay out of business decisions.
If you want a “it could happen” argument to be remotely taken seriously, you have to connect more dots than just point to the calendar and wave your hands vaguely about some inevitable march of progress that doesn’t exist.
Every time you say this you just tell me you don’t understand and can’t follow.
Probably not.
The people actually directing the course of game development are already handsomely paid.
The people whining about pay aren’t the ones making the games fun or good to play, as those high tier decisions are well above their pay grade. If Blizzard games were consistently horrendously bugged then you might have a point, but these are the base tier bug catchers, coders, artists, and other under-the-hood folks that are part of the game, but aren’t really responsible for how great a game is or isn’t.
Now you’re just being snarky. Just because you don’t think Retail is good doesn’t mean it isn’t, and you’re still here paying a subscription so Blizzard isn’t really concerned either way since you’re still paying them.
It’s not just me mate. Why is a 15 year old version of the game more popular?
Have subscribers been going up for Retail?
Defending Blizzard. You go you… I’ve paid them way more then $15. I just also can expect a lot more out of them and their products instead of the washing machine retail is.
Keep defending the rich. Trickle down works for people cleaning the loos. Enjoy your place.
Wouldn’t know, they aren’t separate subscriptions.
I’m sorry I don’t get emotionally worked up over video game companies failing to comply with arbitrary aesthetic standards? I guess?
So you’re a repeat consumer they know they can bilk for more money.
You can “expect” it all you like, but so long as you keep purchasing their product and reupping that subscription month after month, year after year, you aren’t really telling Blizzard what you think you are.