What the heck is "industrial laundry" cost?

Continued from above and awaiting response. Hi Mal, Tim Haab has replied to your comment: 1. No one deserves 1000 times more that another worker. Why not? BECAUSE THEY CAN NOT WORK THAT MUCH HARDER. THEY ARE LUCKY 2. I'd make laws to limit salaries but that won't work. You're right, that won't work. Incentives generate productivity. FREE MARKETS WORK BEST 3. So I'd tax very progressively Again, why? Because of your arbitrary definition of fairness, you seem to want to create incentives against trying to earn more. YOU WILL ALWAYS EARN MORE JUST LESS MORE 4. You are the economist here so break it down. Working 80hr/wk deserves twice as much as 40/wk Overtime is often paid at 1.5 regular wages. I assume then that you are opposed to overtime pay? "- spending time and money to train for more difficult work(ie. doctors) deserves say 5-20 times more." Arbitrary. If I want to pay my doctor 50 times more than I pay my babysitter, shouldn't that be my choice? YES BUT THEY WILL PAY MORE TAXES "Making better life decisions, applying yourself, other good choices deserves a little more." Arbitrary. I'm picturing in your world a formula or menu of how much you get for what...You showed up for work today ($10), you didn't surf the internet ($5)... ARBITRARY NOT A FORMULA BUT TRUE "Add these things up and you maybe can justify a 50-100 times ratio not a 1000." Where's the line? And why do you (or anyone for that matter) get to decide? THE LINE IS NEGOTIABLE , THE FEDS DETERMINE THE PROPER TAX PROGRESSIVITY Consider two factories both producing widgets. Widegets are produced by individuals and require no specialized training. In factory A, all workers get $100 a day regardless of how many widgets each worker produces. In factory B, all workers get $1 per widget produced. Which factory do you think is going to produce more widgets? Which factory do you think will produce higher average wages for its workers? FACTORY B "5. the other things, more smarts, 7 feet tall, good contacts, right place right time, family connections all are just the luck of the draw. they are not earned. they are luck." I was having fun with #'s 1-4, but this is just nonsense. Kobe is paid what Kobe is paid because a lot of people are willing to pay a lot of money to watch Kobe do what Kobe does. While I agree that you can't teach height, there are plenty of 6'6" people out there who can't do what Kobe does. I am 6'3" and can't even come close. By your definition, everything everyone does is a crap shoot and no one should be rewarded for the outcomes. YOU ARE MISSUNDERSTANDING ME. KOBE STILL MAKES HIS MILLIONS. DID KOBE WORK THAT MUCH HARDER DEVELOPING HIS TALENT THAN OTHER 6'6" ERS OR DID HE HAVE A GENETIC DISPOSITION(LUCK)? . I FACTOR IN THE HARDER WORK "Tax luck very progressively. Kobe 90%. Warren 95%. Government services need to be paid for somehow." This can be done without creating disincentives to be better at what you do...YOU ALWAYS MAKE MORE JUST LESS MORE. Tim, Do you really think a progressive tax system is bad and do you recall the historical rates. I didn't look it up but I heard Ben Stein said it was ~90% when he was a kid.

I'm surprised you don't object to this. Here's my two cents worth. 1. No one deserves 1000 times more that another worker. 2. I'd make laws to limit salaries but that won't work. 3. So I'd tax very progressively 4. You are the economist here so break it down. Working 80hr/wk deserves twice as much as 40/wk- spending time and money to train for more difficult work(ie. doctors) deserves say 5-20 times more. Making better life decisions, applying yourself, other good choices deserves a little more. Add these things up and you maybe can justify a 50-100 times ratio not a 1000. 5. the other things, more smarts, 7 feet tall, good contacts, right place right time, family connections all are just the luck of the draw. they are not earned. they are luck. Tax luck very progressively. Kobe 90%. Warren 95%. Government services need to be paid for somehow. Make luck pay more. That's my view of fair share.

Help me out here, where do these people(the 31% that don't see solid evidence) get their news. I know it's not ABC or NBC or CBS or CNN or MSNBC or PBS. Maybe they are just the "low information" people out there. Besides this is a settled issue why are we still taking polls anyway.

There seems to be a default position that USA's taxing fossil fuels is the answer to the perceived problems of a rise in global temperatures. A few questions are in order. 1. Are the people with this position aware of the people who are not in that camp? There are a lot of them and they all are not stupid. 2. Does this camp think they can control the whole worlds energy use? 3. Do the people in this camp think razing the cost of the USA's energy will not affect our competitive position in the world? 4. Do the people in this camp think carbon taxes are somehow absorbed by big corporations and not passed on to the folks? 5. Is change bad? 6. Are their any good things about global warming? 7. Have you looked at reversing population growth? 8. Do you believe the free market system is what made us great? Just Saying.

If you are a fan of letting the market sort it out I'm sure you are against subsidizing selected energy sources. Right?

The Social Security trust fund will be fully depleted by 2033 and benefits will at that time need to drop to 76% of what they are. The disability fund will be dry by 2016. Why does this problem need to be linked to anything else? This issue has nothing to do with global warming. Is Thomas's head in the sand or what?

What's not to like? Are you kidding? I realize all those advocating for this would love wallowing in a trillion dollars and dreaming of ways to "return the revenue" in ways that pleased them. The thoughts of how much to hike the tax rate each year must be verging on psychedelic. I only wish that like all corporate taxes it was not a hidden tax on the folks but rather a upfront tax. A separate number at the end of every year that everyone over 18 got a bill for and had to pay. No exemptions. That way everyone would know their cost of saving the earth. At least in the USA. You could factor in some of those famous "externalities" and give credit on your bill maybe on the honor system because no one would want to not save the earth(would they?)for an electric car, wind generated electricity, a small house, not much air travel, you know the drill. The logistics of doing this are hard but right up the ally for lots of people in this field. Let the grant money start to flow to "study" my idea. Thoughts?

I thought this issue was settled. Maybe whoever is funding all these studies could switch it up a little. Say fund studies to see if the earth is round for a few years. I know all these scientists need to earn their keep somehow. I mean do you really want them to try to lower the cost of a college education by teaching a few more hours a semester or study something.

Here's a thought. Lets push for reducing the world's population. I know it would be hard on some of our Ponsi like schemes, Social Security and the like but really if you take the long long long view it's the answer. Lets stop the applauding when someone says...Yah I've got eight kids. It might be a more feasible answer than getting the world to reduce burning carbon based fuels. I think this might be another area where China's ahead of us.

How about making the price of everything reflect their negative exteralities? You know just to be fair mom.

Tim & John, I enjoy your writings, your candor, and your level intelect and I also thank you and say keep up the good work. The issue of academic wages and the various reasons for them would be an intesesting area to look into and expand on especially given the current financial difficulties facing our country's education system.

Tim, Thanks for the unexpectedly honest(I think) response. The "..and to create a barrier to entry into the profession which drives our wages up" confirms my long felt suspicion. If I were in your shoes I might do the same thing. Ms.Gopalakrishnan is wonderful at it. I hope that when these issues are framed for our political purse string holders that they are more like your interpretation. I mean most of them wouldn't be able get out their old statistic's textbook and bone up on OLS's. I'm going to also try to use the word "parameterize" more often in my day to conversations around the house. Thanks again Lynn

I tried to read and understand Sathya Gopalakrishnan's abstract and I can't. I need an interpreter. I'm pretty sure it's English. Maybe someone could get a "grant" to find out just what percent of the US adult population accurately understands her language? Maybe I'm just dumb. I do have a B.S. degree from a highly regarded university but that was a long time ago.

Hip hip hooray. Someone should hand deliver this to Wolf

John, Thanks for posting my thoughts. I'm honored. Lynn

Their is hope here. 3 of 5 good ideas to cut spending but still 2 of 5 to basically enable or maintain spending. And revenue neutral just doesn't cut it. It's so difficult to face the reality that we have and are living beyond our means. Rome found out this the hard way. One can argue the merits of various tax increases but unless spending is reduced first it only enables the status quo which is the inevitable demise of our way of life. PRIORITIZE NOW! We're near the tipping point. Regards and thanks for the response Lynn

Their is hope here. 3 of 5 good ideas to cut spending but still 2 of 5 to basically enable or maintain spending. And revenue neutral just doesn't cut it. It's so difficult to face the reality that we have and are living beyond our means. Rome found out this the hard way. One can argue the merits of various tax increases but unless spending is reduced first it only enables the status quo which is the inevitable demise of our way of life. PRIORITIZE NOW! We're near the tipping point. Regards and thanks for the response Lynn

Now is not the time to advocate new ways to spend on "good"ideas. That's easy. Anybody anytime can do that. Our leaders with the cheer leading of most of the media have been doing that for too many years. And now we're basically broke. I repeat WE ARE BROKE. We are deep in debt. We are in danger of collapsing because of our debt. NOW IS THE TIME TO PRIORITIZE AND COME UP WITH WAYS TO REDUCE SPENDING. The notion that the 3-5% cuts of the sequester are going to "devastate" some government program is absurd. Why doesn't media start presenting cost cutting ideas people befor we collapse. And that includes you John.

My thoughts. 1. The term "denier" is prejudicial 2. Consensus of opinion does not make truth 3. I suspect most of these authors livelihood is enhanced by an agreement with this position. Publish that data also. 4. Just as governments,businesses,tax payers are negatively affected by CO2 reduction costs let the proponents grants,jobs, and salaries be similarly affected so they also feel the pain. 5. Bottom line start proposing world population reduction. 6. And get nuclear power much much more of the energy pie.