n May 1, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced he had brokered a deal to raise the city’s minimum wage for all workers from $9.32 to $15 an hour, the highest in the country. That in itself was remarkable. Even more so was that Murray did it without the anger and political bloodshed that’s pitted employers against workers in other cities and has stalled efforts in Congress to increase the federal minimum wage. In what may be a model for other cities and states, Murray put business leaders, union bosses, and community advocates in a room for months with simple instructions: work out your differences, or else.
The “or else” was that Murray and the city council would do it without them. He had the political momentum to back up the threat. When Murray, a Democrat, took office in January, the region seemed ready for a minimum pay bump. Voters in a small town to Seattle’s south, SeaTac, passed a measure to raise wages for transportation and hospitality workers to $15 an hour. Seattle elected a socialist to the city council on a living wage platform. Rather than push his own proposal through the city council, or risk outside groups bringing ballot initiatives that would likely turn ugly and draw the attention of special interest money, he appointed a 24-member group to reach an agreement. “If you want people to get here in the end, you need to bring them to the table,” he says.
To co-chair the group, Murray chose two men on opposite sides of the debate: Howard Wright, founder of Seattle Hospitality Group, an investor in the iconic Space Needle, and David Rolf, president of a local SEIU Healthcare union. The idea tested the widely held assertion put forth by business groups that employers can’t afford to pay workers more. It also offered an alternative to the confrontational battles employees have waged elsewhere, such as the coordinated strikes by fast-food workers in New York and dozens of other cities.
Murray gave the group four months to work out a deal. If they failed, he vowed to present the city council with his own proposal, which both sides were sure to hate. He chose April 30 as a deadline because May is when outside groups that propose ballot initiatives typically start gathering signatures.
Local business leaders decided that joining the effort was in their best interest. “There is no doubt in my mind that this $15 is coming to Seattle,” says Wright. “So if we accept that as a premise, let’s figure out how to do it well.” Labor leaders in the group wanted a pay increase to take effect quickly; business owners wanted to phase it in over many years. Labor insisted that tips and benefits not count as part of someone’s wages; businesses thought they should be able to pay lower hourly rates if they provided other compensation such as retirement contributions. Everyone thought small businesses should get extra time to comply, but no one agreed on how to define “small.”
A month before the deadline, Murray narrowed the group to eight negotiators. The G8, as they became known, took over several rooms in the mayor’s office. A breakthrough came on April 14, when someone—the person asked not to be named, Rolf says—sketched out a chart showing how a proposed compromise would let wages at different workplaces rise at different rates. Businesses could count tips and health care in calculating minimum pay for workers, but only temporarily. Eventually those concessions would phase out and every employer would have to pay the same minimum wage. “You could see the body language in the room change,” says Rolf.
Story: It's On! Nobel Economists Go Head to Head Over $10.10 Minimum Wage
The proposal divided businesses into four groups. Large employers, with 500 workers or more, would need to pay $15 an hour by 2017. But if they provide health insurance, like the local outdoor retailer REI, they could have an extra year. A small business such as a dry cleaner wouldn’t have to pay $15 until 2021, but a rest
could be indexed to inflation, so they’d never need to go through a painful negotiation again.
The final plan came together late on April 30, just before Murray’s ultimatum expired. The proposal now goes to the city council, where Murray hopes to keep its nine members from taking it apart. “I imagine there will be tweaks,” he says. With too many changes, he warns, the delicate compromise could collapse.
It could work if the economy stays even or rise given the time frame. Though its being discuss at township and other places outside of Seattle that business are migrating due to lower cost of living in the area.
SEA-TAC though I believe its the employed in the International Airport
Lots of people are unhappy about the SEA-TAC situation. People lost hours, company perks like free food at the airport. There are now 'surcharges' on everything for the minimum wage which customers are upset about. It is basically an 8% 'living wage' surcharge to all products and services.
It has not panned out as this article would lead you to believe. Lots of people, once they lose their overtime, free meals and such are making less than they were before.
I guess it all 'depends'. Lots of workers seem to say it is not working out for them.
The minimum wage increase in Seattle is great news for everyone, regardless of how you feel about raising it or not. Finally, we can see what actually happens, one way or the other.
Jihadin wrote: NK My wife works in the Tukwilla(sp) office in USCIS. She says pretty much the same thing that it wasn't thought out in SEA-TAC
Well, some of the major issues is when people are 'exempt' then it doesn't work. Like apparently if you are a hotel with less than 100 rooms, it doesn't apply to you. So they wrote a law to focus on the large hotels. Guess what? all the large hotels now have 99 rooms and 85 rooms of 'storage' and are exempt.
One of the major perks of working in an Airport is there is a ton of food moving through the snake, and it goes bad. Almost all the transportation air and restaurant workers basically had free food because it was trash. Now the airport is basically 'throwing it away' or 'selling it to waste distributors' opposed to letting employees have it. Kinda mean on the management end, but hell, if you can sell food to companies who take it for pig farms, then so be it. No free food for employees.
And in a 11% sales tax, you now have an 8.5% living wage surcharge. What a better way to anger your customers than to throw it directly in their face. Tipping has gone down drastically and people used to make more at 7.25$ with tips than they do now with 15$ as customers are considering the 'surcharge' part of their tip or all of it.
And it doesn't address that if everyone is paying the surcharge, then everyone's purchasing power just got reduced.
I don't feel like regional or local minimum wage laws with 'exceptions' work. It is a national debate or not at all and these regional attempts are actually hurting the national debate because when someone can move 2 miles to avoid a 50% increase in wages, then the wage increase fails, and is not fair to all businesses involved. The idea of a level playing field means if I have to absorb 15$ wage, so does my competitor.
I would rather see my state increase it state-wide than see arrogant townships wreck local economies. Luckily none of these knee-jerk reactions are happening near me so it is hard to care. All of the local debates here have been gradual, state-wide and are being done in such a way to prevent the need for 'flight' to avoid it.
And here is a question: One of the major arguments is 'minimum wage people are on government assistance, we are subsidizing businesses.' How is it any different if we pay surcharges? Regardless we are 'subsidizing businesses via our buying a product. And the difference is those who need subsidizing, I am *FINE* with giving those people government assistance. I trust the government better to doll out income supplements in the form of food stamps and other programs over paying a hefty surcharge to a corporation and having it spent as a 'wage' which isn't necessarily going to the people who need it. I would rather see a single mother of 3 kids and two teenagers all making 7.25$ and giving the mother a ton of government assistance opposed to giving all 3 of them 15$ an hour and no assistance to the mother.
Ouze wrote: The minimum wage increase in Seattle is great news for everyone, regardless of how you feel about raising it or not. Finally, we can see what actually happens, one way or the other.
Is it going to be that Mecca of Progressive City that some are pinning for?
Or, will it be a redux of what happened in Detroit?
Jihadin wrote: NK My wife works in the Tukwilla(sp) office in USCIS. She says pretty much the same thing that it wasn't thought out in SEA-TAC
Well, some of the major issues is when people are 'exempt' then it doesn't work. Like apparently if you are a hotel with less than 100 rooms, it doesn't apply to you. So they wrote a law to focus on the large hotels. Guess what? all the large hotels now have 99 rooms and 85 rooms of 'storage' and are exempt.
One of the major perks of working in an Airport is there is a ton of food moving through the snake, and it goes bad. Almost all the transportation air and restaurant workers basically had free food because it was trash. Now the airport is basically 'throwing it away' or 'selling it to waste distributors' opposed to letting employees have it. Kinda mean on the management end, but hell, if you can sell food to companies who take it for pig farms, then so be it. No free food for employees.
And in a 11% sales tax, you now have an 8.5% living wage surcharge. What a better way to anger your customers than to throw it directly in their face. Tipping has gone down drastically and people used to make more at 7.25$ with tips than they do now with 15$ as customers are considering the 'surcharge' part of their tip or all of it.
And it doesn't address that if everyone is paying the surcharge, then everyone's purchasing power just got reduced.
I don't feel like regional or local minimum wage laws with 'exceptions' work. It is a national debate or not at all and these regional attempts are actually hurting the national debate because when someone can move 2 miles to avoid a 50% increase in wages, then the wage increase fails, and is not fair to all businesses involved. The idea of a level playing field means if I have to absorb 15$ wage, so does my competitor.
I would rather see my state increase it state-wide than see arrogant townships wreck local economies. Luckily none of these knee-jerk reactions are happening near me so it is hard to care. All of the local debates here have been gradual, state-wide and are being done in such a way to prevent the need for 'flight' to avoid it.
And here is a question: One of the major arguments is 'minimum wage people are on government assistance, we are subsidizing businesses.' How is it any different if we pay surcharges? Regardless we are 'subsidizing businesses via our buying a product. And the difference is those who need subsidizing, I am *FINE* with giving those people government assistance. I trust the government better to doll out income supplements in the form of food stamps and other programs over paying a hefty surcharge to a corporation and having it spent as a 'wage' which isn't necessarily going to the people who need it. I would rather see a single mother of 3 kids and two teenagers all making 7.25$ and giving the mother a ton of government assistance opposed to giving all 3 of them 15$ an hour and no assistance to the mother.
Wow, ya I can see why some people are angry about that. I probably wouldn't tip either.
Actually... that "Living Wage" line on your receipt is the perfect way to inform folks on how policy is affecting their purchasing power.
I just wish all taxes is that prevalent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also: I'd bet that unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
A lot of townships out of the Seattle area is doing the Texas thing. Port Orchard is courting a nice size sheet metal fabricating shop that's in Seattle to move over the Sound.
Jihadin wrote: NK My wife works in the Tukwilla(sp) office in USCIS. She says pretty much the same thing that it wasn't thought out in SEA-TAC
Yeah, my rugby club is literally right on the north end of the Airport... and the Seatac wage thing affected everyone EXCEPT the people who actually worked inside the fence. So naturally there were many people who quit or otherwise simply couldn't do the work (some due to the potential increase in spending just to make it to and from work, etc), but many took "worse" jobs that were outside the fence of the airport, and got a raise in doing so.
Ouze wrote: The minimum wage increase in Seattle is great news for everyone, regardless of how you feel about raising it or not. Finally, we can see what actually happens, one way or the other.
Is it going to be that Mecca of Progressive City that some are pinning for?
Or, will it be a redux of what happened in Detroit?
Probably a bit of both really.... Things like the Space Needle, and Pike's Fish Market draw people in. Not to mention the numerous colleges that are in town... I don't think that larger companies, like Microsoft and the like who have a presence in the city itself will be all that affected by this (except maybe having to pay more for starbucks)
Eventually property taxes going to come around for increase Like Pierce 40% increase in property tax to build two new schools and then refurb the two old school. There's no cap on the property tax...
Jihadin wrote: Eventually property taxes going to come around for increase Like Pierce 40% increase in property tax to build two new schools and then refurb the two old school. There's no cap on the property tax...
Oh and Apoc at my house on the 21st
Sounds like a good time...
I did read in the local school district paper that I now get, that some of the money for my nearest school district comes from DoDEA schools, which I thought was kinda cool.
The first time this was brought up wasn't it talked about how doing a minimum wage raise in single locations was a bad idea? It either needed to be widespread or not done at all.
Ahtman wrote: The first time this was brought up wasn't it talked about how doing a minimum wage raise in single locations was a bad idea? It either needed to be widespread or not done at all.
In some ways, this isn't quite a localized issue, as in essence, the city of Seattle is responding to what the city of Seatac has done (since Seatac Intl Airport is operated by Port of Seattle, and somehow falls in the jurisdiction of Seattle, even though it's its' own city)
Medium of Death wrote: I love how that receipt basically has the workers pay added on at the end, simply fantastic. It's not like that money couldn't come out of the $80~
I love how someone would be stupid enough to pay $84 to park their car instead of seeking a cheaper alternative.
1st world problems.
No doubt some right winger(s) will basically defend their society's right to maintain underpaid slaves of necessity.
Medium of Death wrote: I love how that receipt basically has the workers pay added on at the end, simply fantastic. It's not like that money couldn't come out of the $80~
I love how someone would be stupid enough to pay $84 to park their car instead of seeking a cheaper alternative.
1st world problems.
$84 (or $106 and some change) is a pretty reasonable fee for indefinite storage of an unwanted corpse or other evidence of criminal activity.
Medium of Death wrote: I love how that receipt basically has the workers pay added on at the end, simply fantastic. It's not like that money couldn't come out of the $80~
I love how someone would be stupid enough to pay $84 to park their car instead of seeking a cheaper alternative.
1st world problems.
That was $84 for a full week, which isn't a bad rate.
One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.
In the US, you see $22 for a steak and you think that's a pretty good price, but then you get the bill and you've got a whole bunch of other stuff on top of that, to which you add a tip. It was a running joke when we were over there - "I wonder how much this will actually cost? Let's find out!"
Good luck to anyone trying to put a decent control on their travel spending.
whembly wrote: Is it going to be that Mecca of Progressive City that some are pinning for?
Or, will it be a redux of what happened in Detroit?
Detroit is what happens when a city is built around a single industry, and economic changes mean there is no longer any reason to base the whole of that industry around a single city. The jobs move elsewhere, and the city goes in to terminal decline if it can't find alternative employment opportunities.
Which has nothing to do with minimum wage. I mean, yeah, there are job losses associated with raising the minimum wage, but outside of ludicrous increases in the minimum wage, it isn't going to wipe out whole industries. Especially not in a city like Seattle, which doesn't compete and export any kind of minimum wage industry.
sebster wrote: One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.
In the US, you see $22 for a steak and you think that's a pretty good price, but then you get the bill and you've got a whole bunch of other stuff on top of that, to which you add a tip. It was a running joke when we were over there - "I wonder how much this will actually cost? Let's find out!"
Good luck to anyone trying to put a decent control on their travel spending.
Now that's quite interesting... makes it easier to plan a trip, eh?
whembly wrote: Is it going to be that Mecca of Progressive City that some are pinning for?
Or, will it be a redux of what happened in Detroit?
Detroit is what happens when a city is built around a single industry, and economic changes mean there is no longer any reason to base the whole of that industry around a single city. The jobs move elsewhere, and the city goes in to terminal decline if it can't find alternative employment opportunities.
Which has nothing to do with minimum wage. I mean, yeah, there are job losses associated with raising the minimum wage, but outside of ludicrous increases in the minimum wage, it isn't going to wipe out whole industries. Especially not in a city like Seattle, which doesn't compete and export any kind of minimum wage industry.
It's actually, the comparison may be closer than you think.
It's the policies, like raising the min wage like this, is a microcosm of the policies that failed Detroit.
Besides... guess which group spent the most money advocating this? Once you find that out, then ask why?
sebster wrote: One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.
One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.
whembly wrote: Now that's quite interesting... makes it easier to plan a trip, eh?
Makes it easier to manage your finances day by day. I mean, if you want to keep to say, $50 a day, then there's a lot of value in being able to see a price and knowing whether it fits in to your budget or not.
It's actually, the comparison may be closer than you think.
It's the policies, like raising the min wage like this, is a microcosm of the policies that failed Detroit.
Trying to write Detroit as a story of failed policies is re-writing history to suit politics. Car manufacturing left the city, for the basic economic reality that it was no longer viable to centralise car manufacture.
Besides... guess which group spent the most money advocating this? Once you find that out, then ask why?
We could attempt the same exercise with the groups that opposed it, it wouldn't mean much. I mean, it could turn out that the biggest people in favour of an increase in minimum wage was the Nazis, and the biggest opponents were the Scientologists, and the question of whether it was good or not would still rely essentially on economic realities - jobs lost vs poverty relieved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.
You're required by law to post the full price, tax included, here. I suspect Europe is the same.
Ahtman wrote: The first time this was brought up wasn't it talked about how doing a minimum wage raise in single locations was a bad idea? It either needed to be widespread or not done at all.
In some ways, this isn't quite a localized issue
Until Seatac or Seattle encompass the entire state or nation it is still quite localized.
RiTides wrote: Why would an energy bill or rent have a living wage surcharge? Not sure that's applicable, 44ronin.
That's my point.
It won't be on there directly, but costs will go up. It will take a little while for everything to react to the change, but give it 6 months and everything in the area will get raised in response to this massive increase in the minimum wage.
You'll see hiring go way down, there will be less new businesses opening up, and they will hire fewer new employees.
Grey Templar wrote: It won't be on there directly, but costs will go up. It will take a little while for everything to react to the change, but give it 6 months and everything in the area will get raised in response to this massive increase in the minimum wage.
You'll see hiring go way down, there will be less new businesses opening up, and they will hire fewer new employees.
That depends on the economic conditions in the area. What you're describing is true when the minimum wage is pushed too high, in an economy where labour is already priced at the marginal rate of return. But in many places neither of those things are in place, and you can increase the minimum wage without major increases in price levels or job losses.
$15 strikes me as exceeding the marginal rate of return, though it's worth noting it won't be fully in place until 2017, and even then there's plenty of delays and exceptions.
Blackhoof wrote: Australia has a comparable minimum wage, slightly higher actually, and we are doing quite well.
To be fair, once you look at the relative strength of our dollar to the USD (by PPP, not direct exchange rate the swap is about 80c USD to the AUD), then our $16.37 minimum wage would be about $13.10 in the US. So $15 an hour would actually put them over our rate by quite a bit. Then there's other factors on top of that - the US still has a pretty sizable low skilled manufacturing sector, whereas we lost that decades ago, so the job loss of a similar minimum wage would be much greater to them than it was to us.
So $15 does seem pretty high as a national rate, even when your consider it won't be in place for a few years yet.
What happens if the dependent is not your child but rather a family member who you care for?
Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.
That's where the whole thing is really a wash.
The current scenario: No living wage, people with dependents have to rely on welfare to get by, you and me pay for that welfare, pay less for goods and services.
The "living wage" scenario: Everybody gets paid enough, less people rely on welfare to get by, you and me pay less in taxes, you and me pay more for goods and services.
We are going to pay to support the poor. The only argument left is "who is the middleman between us paying and somebody else getting it" and would we rather it be a business that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to greed or a government agency that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to inefficiency.
But this argument is probably better moved to the "minimum wage" thread...
sebster wrote: One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.
One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.
Its an excellent way to cover up how much tax you are paying. Its like paying for gasoline. You see the end price and think "evil oil companies" You don't see that half of it is taxes.
Thanks Obama!
sebster wrote: One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.
One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.
Its an excellent way to cover up how much tax you are paying. Its like paying for gasoline. You see the end price and think "evil oil companies" You don't see that half of it is taxes.
Thanks Obama!
Gas prices have been lower for the last 6 years than they have been under Bush in 2008!
Frazzled wrote: You're comparing a spike in 2008 vs. all of 2011-2014? Nuts.
Average prices are substantially higher. Look at your own chart.
But the price has never reached as high as it was in 2008. If you can quote where I said "the mean of the gas prices from 2009-2014 has been statistically lower than it was during the tenure of President Bush the Younger" then please do so.
All I said was "Gas prices have been lower for the last 6 years than they have been under Bush in 2008", and they have never been higher than the high of 2008.
Frazzled wrote: Ok then ON AVERAGE gas prices are really higher in the Obama administration then now.
Thanks Obama (seriously, think you EPA and RINS prices).
I tried to see once if the average has risen more under Bush or Obama (mostly because I remember filling up in 1999 and having the $ be lower than the gallons (got $15 bucks? Fill 'er up!). But then gasbuddy didn't go back more than 11 years and I got lazy.
Frazzled wrote: Ok then ON AVERAGE gas prices are really higher in the Obama administration then now.
Thanks Obama (seriously, think you EPA and RINS prices).
I tried to see once if the average has risen more under Bush or Obama (mostly because I remember filling up in 1999 and having the $ be lower than the gallons (got $15 bucks? Fill 'er up!). But then gasbuddy didn't go back more than 11 years and I got lazy.
sebster wrote: One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.
One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.
Its an excellent way to cover up how much tax you are paying. Its like paying for gasoline. You see the end price and think "evil oil companies" You don't see that half of it is taxes.
Thanks Obama!
There's absolutely nothing preventing companies from listing what part of the price is tax and how much isn't, while still taking the full cost into account.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's absolutely nothing preventing companies from listing what part of the price is tax and how much isn't, while still taking the full cost into account.
I don't tend to look at my fuel bill (as it is just horrifically large even for a small, relatively efficient car ) so I can't remember what breakdown they apply to the cost in terms of the horrific taxes they apply to fuel, though I seem to recall they include all the tax except VAT in the base price, then charge you VAT on the cost of the fuel and the other tax as well
However, everything else I buy has a subtotal at the end with and without VAT.
The "living wage" scenario: Everybody gets paid enough, less people rely on welfare to get by, you and me pay less in taxes, you and me pay more for goods and services.
We are going to pay to support the poor. The only argument left is "who is the middleman between us paying and somebody else getting it" and would we rather it be a business that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to greed or a government agency that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to inefficiency.
But this argument is probably better moved to the "minimum wage" thread...
The issue is: a living wage surcharge doesn't go to the employee, it goes to the big business. There are all these attempts to force the rich and 'big business' to pay but it seems that they always get out of it and only hurts consumers and small businesses.
If I have valet parking, and he fetches 10 cars this hour and I have to pay him 15$ an hour, let's look at the 'surcharge' collected. If every car ticket is 40-80$ at the airport, the living wage of 8.5% surcharge is going to add up to 50-60$ an hour. And the employee gets 7.50$ of that. Who get's the rest? Who do we trust to supplement employees?
And then now we have people who don't need the subsidy getting it and those who need it not getting it.
Finally, 'consumer taxes' don't impact the rich as the rich don't consume more in relation to their income. If I make 10 times what you make, I don't eat 10 times more food, drive 10 times more cars or consume 10 times more gas per mile traveled. I may consume more on average, but no where close to my potential earning. So when you add consumption fees or taxes, it is disproportionately hitting those who consume over those who have wealth.
Boils down to if we as society feel that basic living conditions need to exist and needs to be subsidized by society, it is not best left in the hands of the 'rich' to voluntarily do it which is what the living wage debate seems to think will happen. They think somehow by raising the minimum wage that somehow it will target specific profits and the problem is solved. We all know that won't happen and 'living wage' surcharges proves that. And the alternative is to have oppressive tax laws which liberate profit from successful businesses with surgical precision to guarantee other rates and impacts don't change and profit margins go down to pay for the wage increases... and that won't happen either.
Right now, Businesses are probably laughing their asses off, If I could put a arbitrary politically charged 'tax' for my store on my bill for service or product and shrug 'blame your politician' and such surcharge is not regulated or monitored so I can be making gross profit off it, It is a great thing for businesses to have. And none of it helps employees, and actually hurts them in the form of reducing tips and functionally giving those tips to the employer.
Well, except that a lot of industries are especially price-sensitive. Grocery stores, fast food, and bulk stores like Walmart are all highly price sensitive. If McDonalds slaps a $.50 surcharge on their prices, the buyer will go to the Burger King across the road that didn't. I can see how a parking lot at an airport might have the ability to inflict whatever cost they want on their customers, but most businesses are going to need to compete, and should avoid doing this. (I think a study showed a very marginal increase on big macs would be necessary to offset a $15 min wage, one that, with their current profits, McDonald's could easily absorb to maintain low prices.)
And even the parking lot at the airport has some competition, in the form of airport shuttles and getting a ride from a friend. They can slap a surcharge on there, and maybe consumers will accept it, and maybe others won't. There's that sweet spot on the supply/demand chart, and a price increase of 20%, regardless of how they explain it, may well push them out of it.
And even the parking lot at the airport has some competition, in the form of airport shuttles and getting a ride from a friend. They can slap a surcharge on there, and maybe consumers will accept it, and maybe others won't. There's that sweet spot on the supply/demand chart, and a price increase of 20%, regardless of how they explain it, may well push them out of it.
To be fair, if your "friend" is slapping a living wage surcharge on giving you a ride you need a new friend.
Besides... guess which group spent the most money advocating this? Once you find that out, then ask why?
We could attempt the same exercise with the groups that opposed it, it wouldn't mean much. I mean, it could turn out that the biggest people in favour of an increase in minimum wage was the Nazis, and the biggest opponents were the Scientologists, and the question of whether it was good or not would still rely essentially on economic realities - jobs lost vs poverty relieved.
The point I was trying to make Seb is that many Service Oriented Unions generally peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
That's all I was pointing out.
This thing should've been done at a Steve level...
:shrugs: we'll definitely see what sort of impact, for good or ill, this will have rather quickly.
Well, except that a lot of industries are especially price-sensitive. Grocery stores, fast food, and bulk stores like Walmart are all highly price sensitive. If McDonalds slaps a $.50 surcharge on their prices, the buyer will go to the Burger King across the road that didn't. I can see how a parking lot at an airport might have the ability to inflict whatever cost they want on their customers, but most businesses are going to need to compete, and should avoid doing this. (I think a study showed a very marginal increase on big macs would be necessary to offset a $15 min wage, one that, with their current profits, McDonald's could easily absorb to maintain low prices.)
And even the parking lot at the airport has some competition, in the form of airport shuttles and getting a ride from a friend. They can slap a surcharge on there, and maybe consumers will accept it, and maybe others won't. There's that sweet spot on the supply/demand chart, and a price increase of 20%, regardless of how they explain it, may well push them out of it.
An 8.5% increase on a 5$ meal is 42 cents... Define 'marginal'? And why raise prices when you can fight back and put a surcharge on to shift the blame and responsibility? An 8 cent increase on a 99cent burger is marginal. So either I sell 1.08$ burger or a 99cent burger with an 8 cent surcharge...
People won't go across the street because everyone will be doing it either in the form of surcharges or price increases. The idea that businesses will absorb the costs opposed to passing it completely over to the consumer simply doesn't pan out. And if they can't increase prices, they cut material costs or portions. Never profits.
And it doesn't actually address the issue, in the form of getting support to those who need it. That 15 year old doesn't need 15$ an hour but that mother of 3 kids does... The problem is we can't pay people what they need, only for what they do. We shouldn't be trying to raise basic wages to solve the 'living wage' issue of all situations and relying on corporations to magically spend profits to fix society because it won't happen. We have basically given that teenager an advantage and devalued that mother of 3's buying power and not at all addressed the issue.
I would much rather see government support programs to those who need it to augment wages for those who don't earn enough opposed to thinking that businesses will somehow lower profit margins and throwing more money at people solves all these issues.
whembly wrote: Now that's quite interesting... makes it easier to plan a trip, eh?
Makes it easier to manage your finances day by day. I mean, if you want to keep to say, $50 a day, then there's a lot of value in being able to see a price and knowing whether it fits in to your budget or not.
It's actually, the comparison may be closer than you think.
It's the policies, like raising the min wage like this, is a microcosm of the policies that failed Detroit.
Trying to write Detroit as a story of failed policies is re-writing history to suit politics. Car manufacturing left the city, for the basic economic reality that it was no longer viable to centralise car manufacture.
Besides... guess which group spent the most money advocating this? Once you find that out, then ask why?
We could attempt the same exercise with the groups that opposed it, it wouldn't mean much. I mean, it could turn out that the biggest people in favour of an increase in minimum wage was the Nazis, and the biggest opponents were the Scientologists, and the question of whether it was good or not would still rely essentially on economic realities - jobs lost vs poverty relieved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.
You're required by law to post the full price, tax included, here. I suspect Europe is the same.
One of the few things I really miss about Australia is that thing I've bolded.
My god america get on your feet and look around and see that we are just being dupped by the Bourgeoisie :/
*sigh*
It is a good thing they increased the minimum wage. But the problem is that we need raises everywhere, and for companies to have a max price they can charge and it needs to be set low so that they cannot increase just because the minimum wage went up. It also has to be done nation wide, and the companies need to be better controlled so they don't keep doing what they are doing which is increasing the money they make.
More regulated it gets the easier it is to control the companies and their fluctuating prices.
But this time it is on the side of the government doing a property tax :/
15$ for minimum wage is quite high. Why would make it that high? If you increase it slowly it would increase the growth of the entire area! An increase of 1 dollar over months might ease people into it, and might trick them into thinking maybe this works. That is the only way to do it in a capitalist economy otherwise it will crash and burn. Like the stock markets in wall street. (Too soon?)
An 8.5% increase on a 5$ meal is 42 cents... Define 'marginal'? And why raise prices when you can fight back and put a surcharge on to shift the blame and responsibility? An 8 cent increase on a 99cent burger is marginal. So either I sell 1.08$ burger or a 99cent burger with an 8 cent surcharge...
Or, you take a smaller profit, and sell an actual $.99 burger, and win business that the store across the street isn't winning.
People won't go across the street because everyone will be doing it either in the form of surcharges or price increases.
You have no evidence to support this statement. We live in an era where some companies regularly take a loss on items to drive traffic. And, this isn't even taking a loss, it's generating lower profit. I find it far more likely that competition will trump surcharges than that every business will slap the same surcharge on in spite of the possibility for a competitive edge in not doing so.
The idea that businesses will absorb the costs opposed to passing it completely over to the consumer simply doesn't pan out. And if they can't increase prices, they cut material costs or portions. Never profits.
Right, tell that to Amazon.
And it doesn't actually address the issue, in the form of getting support to those who need it. That 15 year old doesn't need 15$ an hour but that mother of 3 kids does... The problem is we can't pay people what they need, only for what they do. We shouldn't be trying to raise basic wages to solve the 'living wage' issue of all situations and relying on corporations to magically spend profits to fix society because it won't happen. We have basically given that teenager an advantage and devalued that mother of 3's buying power and not at all addressed the issue.
I would much rather see government support programs to those who need it to augment wages for those who don't earn enough opposed to thinking that businesses will somehow lower profit margins and throwing more money at people solves all these issues.
But government support programs are inherently more unbalanced that what you're describing.
Currently, I pay taxes. Walmart has workers who don't make a living wage. These workers need to eat or they couldn't work at Walmart. Rather than Walmart paying them more, Walmart expects my tax money will pay their employees, and Walmart keeps the extra profit. Indirectly, I'm paying Walmart's workers, even though I don't shop there and get nothing out of this transaction.
How you can think that a teenager making $15/hour for doing the same work as the mother of three (even though he may not need that extra money) is more unfair than people paying employees of companies they don't even use is beyond me.
Walmart needs living workers. Walmart has the money to pay to keep their employees alive (shelter, food, transportation, healthcare, etc). Why people who don't shop at Walmart should be forced to pay this is so blatantly more unfair that I can't even follow your logic. If Walmart wishes to push the cost of keeping their employees alive onto their customers, that's their right, but at least then the people who don't shop at Walmart aren't penalized for Walmart's business decisions.
An 8.5% increase on a 5$ meal is 42 cents... Define 'marginal'? And why raise prices when you can fight back and put a surcharge on to shift the blame and responsibility? An 8 cent increase on a 99cent burger is marginal. So either I sell 1.08$ burger or a 99cent burger with an 8 cent surcharge...
Or, you take a smaller profit, and sell an actual $.99 burger, and win business that the store across the street isn't winning.
People won't go across the street because everyone will be doing it either in the form of surcharges or price increases.
You have no evidence to support this statement. We live in an era where some companies regularly take a loss on items to drive traffic. And, this isn't even taking a loss, it's generating lower profit. I find it far more likely that competition will trump surcharges than that every business will slap the same surcharge on in spite of the possibility for a competitive edge in not doing so.
The idea that businesses will absorb the costs opposed to passing it completely over to the consumer simply doesn't pan out. And if they can't increase prices, they cut material costs or portions. Never profits.
Right, tell that to Amazon.
And it doesn't actually address the issue, in the form of getting support to those who need it. That 15 year old doesn't need 15$ an hour but that mother of 3 kids does... The problem is we can't pay people what they need, only for what they do. We shouldn't be trying to raise basic wages to solve the 'living wage' issue of all situations and relying on corporations to magically spend profits to fix society because it won't happen. We have basically given that teenager an advantage and devalued that mother of 3's buying power and not at all addressed the issue.
I would much rather see government support programs to those who need it to augment wages for those who don't earn enough opposed to thinking that businesses will somehow lower profit margins and throwing more money at people solves all these issues.
But government support programs are inherently more unbalanced that what you're describing.
Currently, I pay taxes. Walmart has workers who don't make a living wage. These workers need to eat or they couldn't work at Walmart. Rather than Walmart paying them more, Walmart expects my tax money will pay their employees, and Walmart keeps the extra profit. Indirectly, I'm paying Walmart's workers, even though I don't shop there and get nothing out of this transaction.
How you can think that a teenager making $15/hour for doing the same work as the mother of three (even though he may not need that extra money) is more unfair than people paying employees of companies they don't even use is beyond me.
Walmart needs living workers. Walmart has the money to pay to keep their employees alive (shelter, food, transportation, healthcare, etc). Why people who don't shop at Walmart should be forced to pay this is so blatantly more unfair that I can't even follow your logic. If Walmart wishes to push the cost of keeping their employees alive onto their customers, that's their right, but at least then the people who don't shop at Walmart aren't penalized for Walmart's business decisions.
Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.
Such is the game of capitalism. :/
Man that communism thing is sounding more attractive with every passing day.
This might be an interesting read. Its not like Walmart makes as much money as a country.
Wait....
They make 36 Million dollars... An Hour! Oh my goodness! How many workers do they have? 2,000,000 (estimation)? Lets see minimum wage is around 8.50 (A good estimation)
so 16 million dollars is taken away from that 36 million dollars!
So the major CEOs, Managers and higher staff, which number around 500. Get 20 Million Dollars.
YEAH CAPITALISM!
Its not like they could I don't know decrease the wages of the CEos and higher staff to I don't know a maxmimum amount, because its not like they do anything important and have to maintain their families.
Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.
And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.
Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.
This.... I forgot where I read it, but there was an economic article that basically flat out said, Walmart costs tax payers 4 billion dollars in welfare program funds.
Yeah, I know. They're one of the biggest lobbiers (and beneficiaries) of the SNAP program, so much so that they actually listed cuts to the SNAP program as a cause for concern in their latest shareholder report.
Which just reinforces the idea of how wrong this is. We (taxpayers) boost their profit-margin twice (once on the wages they don't pay their employees, and again when their employees spend their SNAP funds in their store). But I guess that's better than accidentally paying a teenager more than he "needs".
Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.
And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.
Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.
Yep yep! I agree with you, but personally it would be better if there was a maximum wage. For all workers. All workers. That would fix the rich problem. Permanently.
Redbeard wrote: Yeah, I know. They're one of the biggest lobbiers (and beneficiaries) of the SNAP program, so much so that they actually listed cuts to the SNAP program as a cause for concern in their latest shareholder report.
Which just reinforces the idea of how wrong this is. We (taxpayers) boost their profit-margin twice (once on the wages they don't pay their employees, and again when their employees spend their SNAP funds in their store). But I guess that's better than accidentally paying a teenager more than he "needs".
Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.
And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.
Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.
Yep yep! I agree with you, but personally it would be better if there was a maximum wage. For all workers. All workers. That would fix the rich problem. Permanently.
Hahah... Let's see how that works out as well. Any such talk of redistribution of wealth will cause people to refuse to accept it.
Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.
And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.
Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.
Yep yep! I agree with you, but personally it would be better if there was a maximum wage. For all workers. All workers. That would fix the rich problem. Permanently.
Hahah... Let's see how that works out as well. Any such talk of redistribution of wealth will cause people to refuse to accept it.
You mean the 1% people. You know I find holding them up at gunpoint by the other 99% usually works.
Hahah... Let's see how that works out as well. Any such talk of redistribution of wealth will cause people to refuse to accept it.
You mean the 1% people. You know I find holding them up at gunpoint by the other 99% usually works.
"Rise up and murder the rich" isn't going to get you far in american politics.
Last time that happened The French Revolution happened.
But eh, I think raising the minimum wage is a mistake. If you think about it rationally the only way to save the economy and people in general is to stop having a free for all on the amount of wages you can make, currently as is people can make as much money as they can, which kind of kills the idea of being land of the free. Its more of the land of the free for those who can afford it.
This might be an interesting read. Its not like Walmart makes as much money as a country.
Wait....
They make 36 Million dollars... An Hour! Oh my goodness! How many workers do they have? 2,000,000 (estimation)? Lets see minimum wage is around 8.50 (A good estimation)
so 16 million dollars is taken away from that 36 million dollars!
So the major CEOs, Managers and higher staff, which number around 500. Get 20 Million Dollars.
YEAH CAPITALISM!
Its not like they could I don't know decrease the wages of the CEos and higher staff to I don't know a maxmimum amount, because its not like they do anything important and have to maintain their families.
Lalala.
Face it they can take a pay cut.
You're reading the numbers at your link incorrectly. That $36 million is money spent at Walmart and is not profit nor are wages and salaries the only expenses paid from that figure. That figure also pays for the product, the facilities upkeep, transportation and distribution and warehousing, taxes and utilities, and so on.
yes, lets limit sucess and also limit the reward factor that drives the best of us to perform to the best of their abilities...
that could never back fire, and ofc, people who make the most couldnt possibly make the most because of their extremely usefull and scarce talents or because their jobs are actually harder then ditch digging ans stocking shelves.
I love how someone just mentioned the french revolution with such rosey eyed glasses and totally forgets about the jacobans and such ushering in a period of bloodshed and chaos immediatly following it...
This might be an interesting read. Its not like Walmart makes as much money as a country.
Wait....
They make 36 Million dollars... An Hour! Oh my goodness! How many workers do they have? 2,000,000 (estimation)? Lets see minimum wage is around 8.50 (A good estimation)
so 16 million dollars is taken away from that 36 million dollars!
So the major CEOs, Managers and higher staff, which number around 500. Get 20 Million Dollars.
YEAH CAPITALISM!
Its not like they could I don't know decrease the wages of the CEos and higher staff to I don't know a maxmimum amount, because its not like they do anything important and have to maintain their families.
Lalala.
Face it they can take a pay cut.
You have zero clue how business works do you?
That 20 million isn't going straight into executive pockets. It gets split among the executives, any company expansion, retained earnings, stock dividends, and overhead. It goes away fast.
That 20 million isn't going straight into executive pockets. It gets split among the executives, any company expansion, retained earnings, stock dividends, and overhead. It goes away fast.
While true, there is still a huge disconnect between CEO pay/benefits to workers.
If that chart is at all correct, yeah... CEOs in the US can stand to take a pay cut
I think the point is that it's 20 million/hour, after subtracting the minimum wage employees. And, of course there are other things to consider, there's healthcare and other benefits for those employees as well as the things you mention.
But, (and using the link provided, with no verification), even after all those costs, they're still reported as making roughly $35,000 in profit, every minute.
Redbeard wrote: I think the point is that it's 20 million/hour, after subtracting the minimum wage employees. And, of course there are other things to consider, there's healthcare and other benefits for those employees as well as the things you mention.
But, (and using the link provided, with no verification), even after all those costs, they're still reported as making roughly $35,000 in profit, every minute.
Which is about $2 mil an hour. And how much does to open a new store? Are shareholders who get a chunk of that not allowed to earn on their investments? And for a company with that many employees to make a profit is a good thing. They pay taxes on it too.
The Feds spend $435mil an hour*. Someone has to fund that.
Say they give up that 2mil an hour and make zero profit. Do you think the extra dollar for each of the 2 million employees justifies running the business just to break even?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.
SNIP.
You have zero clue how business works do you?
That 20 million isn't going straight into executive pockets. It gets split among the executives, any company expansion, retained earnings, stock dividends, and overhead. It goes away fast.
I know, but that is far more than the workers will ever see.
But they still make more than you can possibly imagine.
Walmart is not in bankruptcy.
And yes I do know how business works, but think of it this way, that is only for a day, 36 million dolars per a day . They make $405 Billion a year. The people that own walmart still collect tax dollars and a few other things. Oh woe is thee people, who have constructed an underground bunker underneath their house. Woe is their executives who make millions of dollars a year. Because there are fewer executives and company expansions compared to the amount of workers working there. The workers outnumber the executives
Post 2014/06/10 12:23:29 Subject: How Seattle Agreed to a $15 Minimum Wage Without a Fight yes, lets limit sucess and also limit the reward factor that drives the best of us to perform to the best of their abilities...
that could never back fire, and ofc, people who make the most couldnt possibly make the most because of their extremely usefull and scarce talents or because their jobs are actually harder then ditch digging ans stocking shelves.
I love how someone just mentioned the french revolution with such rosey eyed glasses and totally forgets about the jacobans and such ushering in a period of bloodshed and chaos immediatly following it...
I do fact check and It was the death of an older economic system. Economys when they end, they end in bloodshed. Its an inconvenient truth.
That is a very american way of looking at it. A captalist system does invoke genius ideas, but it also breeds inequality, profiling, and economic turmoil. As it only takes a bunch of people in an 'open' market to screw it up for everyone.
Stand back and look at the problem as a whole. We know for certain this economic system will not stay, like all things it will change. Capitalism is but a step towards something grander. I cannot predict the future so I do not know if that is for the better or the worse, but still, I can see from the past that the only problem caused by capitalism is that it dehumanizes its workers, and glorifies those who are in power and have money.
You're reading the numbers at your link incorrectly. That $36 million is money spent at Walmart and is not profit nor are wages and salaries the only expenses paid from that figure. That figure also pays for the product, the facilities upkeep, transportation and distribution and warehousing, taxes and utilities, and so on.
Yes you are correct. But considering that is per a day. Spent at a walmart, by the customers or consumers, I think that is alot of money. Warehousing taxes and utilities is a miniscuial amount if think about it as it is not paid daily.
Personally I believe workers and the executives should paid the exact same amount of money. Because you know they are both human beings :/
Complain that workers aren't getting paid enough and we can have a discussion.
Simply throwing a fit that the executives are being paid so much more than you just makes the side complaining look childish.
Its like when my little sister complained that I got an entire bagel and she only got half a one for breakfast(I was 18 and she was 5)
Make the argument you aren't getting paid enough, don't just say "They could do with less"
Well, techincally the executives aren't really too different from workers. They both work the same amount of hours. One just dresses nicer than the other.
They are both human beings. There should be no gap between payments.
You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours. I cannot take someone else's pie because I want it. I am a human being, i should not rely on the instinct to survive.
Which is about $2 mil an hour. And how much does to open a new store? Are shareholders who get a chunk of that not allowed to earn on their investments? And for a company with that many employees to make a profit is a good thing. They pay taxes on it too.
No one is saying they don't have a right to make a profit. But, when that profit comes from abusing government handouts on both sides, you have to ask, is that really a profit you should be defending? This is a company that depends on government handouts for their employees to be able to afford to work for them, and then takes those same government handouts back. This is little different than the old 'company store' approach.
I don't shop at Walmart - why are my taxes subsidizing their bottom line? Do you really believe that Walmart's shareholders deserve to have their hands in your pockets because of their investment?
You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.
You realize how stupid that statement is right?
You are saying an 18 year old and a 5 year old should get the exact same amount of food?
I cannot take someone else's pie because I want it.
And yet you are advocating exactly that by saying the executives should earn less pay so their workers can earn more.
But guess what, both are earning a salary as befits what they do for the company.
The workers are just doing as they are told, keep the shelves stocked and the store clean.
The Executives are deciding what should be stocked, how much, where in the store each individual product should be located, negotiating contracts with suppliers, filing paperwork(i'd take scrubbing the floor over that any day), dealing with regulations, dealing with all the negative crap that gets slung your way just because you are a big company, etc...
Executives have much more work to do than their employes, much much more work.
You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.
You realize how stupid that statement is right?
You are saying an 18 year old and a 5 year old should get the exact same amount of food?
I cannot take someone else's pie because I want it.
And yet you are advocating exactly that by saying the executives should earn less pay so their workers can earn more.
But guess what, both are earning a salary as befits what they do for the company.
The workers are just doing as they are told, keep the shelves stocked and the store clean.
The Executives are deciding what should be stocked, how much, where in the store each individual product should be located, negotiating contracts with suppliers, filing paperwork(i'd take scrubbing the floor over that any day), dealing with regulations, dealing with all the negative crap that gets slung your way just because you are a big company, etc...
Executives have much more work to do than their employes, much much more work.
I've heard that before.
So your saying the workers, the people are the frontlines, work with people firsthand, have to work the cash register, have to do all the manual labor they don't deserve anything more than the executive?
When did we start overvaluing a human life over another?
That just shows egoism, they both do the same amount of work. That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do. Who works every waking moment? the workers? Who is trying to survive? The Worker? Who sleeps well at night? The Executives. They can take a massive pay cut. They make more money that you can even fathom. And that whole ideal that they work harder than the worker is a falsity!
You are basically valuing your life more than your sister? Hows that make sense?
You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.
You realize how stupid that statement is right?
You are saying an 18 year old and a 5 year old should get the exact same amount of food?
No he doesnt.. thats the whole point,
someone who isnt savvy enough to realize that he just gave a full pie to someone who not only, does not need it, but cannot use/eat it all, and that that pie had to come from somewhere and possibly someone who does need it.
yet somehow he things he understands economics better then the best people in the business, and can fix everything like *THAT* with a wage cap.
again, I dont hear redbeard complaining about the income gap that movie stars and pro sports players make, despite their "work" being even less usefull then CEO's work...
also... your idea that all humans are equal and should get equal pay, regardless of differing work, has been done before... didnt work out so hot ...
you simply must have actual valuble skills or produce something of more value to get more money, simply wanting it, and complaining that others make so much more then you, isnt good barganing skills, nor is it economically feasable for the lowest common denominator to expect higer uncommon pay rates.
also, you need to stop equating how grey and I are valueing *WORK* .. it is not placing value on *life*... so stop asserting that, its just a false premise.
you seem to have 0 clue what CEO's and higher ups actually do... that you claim front line workers do all the work, just speaks to how ignorant you are of how things actually work... CEO's and such often work longer hours, on salery/bonus/commision basis, have far more work/stress/ect to perform, heck my CEO doesnt even get paid in cash, he accepts stock's, if he screws up the company or the economy tanks, hes royally fethed.
its like you claim the train engineer does all the work because he drives the train, but you ignore that someone has to build, maintain, and pay for the train up front, then spend 10+ years waiting for the revenue that train generates to pay off that principal investment, and only then, start making money.
people who plan and manage businesses actually do work, despite your claims they do less then frontline workers, they in fact, do more... sure its not ditch digging... but there is an endless supply of ditch diggers, and a very limited supply of people who can manage businesses effectively and profitably to ensure they can pay those ditch diggers.
You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.
You realize how stupid that statement is right?
You are saying an 18 year old and a 5 year old should get the exact same amount of food?
No he doesnt.. thats the whole point,
someone who isnt savvy enough to realize that he just gave a full pie to someone who not only, does not need it, but cannot use/eat it all, and that that pie had to come from somewhere and possibly someone who does need it.
yet somehow he things he understands economics better then the best people in the business, and can fix everything like *THAT* with a wage cap.
again, I dont hear redbeard complaining about the income gap that movie stars and pro sports players make, despite their "work" being even less usefull then CEO's work...
also redbead... your idea that all humans are equal and should get equal pay, regardless of differing work, has been done before... didnt work out so hot ...
you simply must have actual valuble skills or produce something of more value to get more money, simply wanting it, and complaining that others make so much more then you, isnt good barganing skills, nor is it economically feasable for the lowest common denominator to expect higer uncommon pay rates.
If you have read Karl Marx's Book Communism you can see that Russia didn't actually follow the ideas of communism at all.
In fact they skipped the most needed attribute. You need to have first been a Capitalist economy in order to become a Communistic system.
Russia was never a true Communism economy. It was basically a downplayed capitalist economy.
If that person does not want the rest of the pie then they might give it to me or they might get rid of it. It's their choice!
Asherian Command wrote: That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.
Except they don't do as much work for the company.
You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.
The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.
If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.
If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)
Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.
if you understood economics at all... you would see that there are no "true" or "pure" capitalist economies either...
its also ironic, that you are ok with one person having far more pie then they need, and even them wasting it, so long as they are not an *evil* ceo who has more pie then they need (despite working harder/smarter for it)
In fact they skipped the most needed attribute. You need to have first been a Capitalist economy in order to become a Communistic system.
No, the most important ingredient needed for communism to work is you need people to be morally perfect(in which case you wouldn't need communism at all)
Communism and Socialism failed on so many levels with Soviet Russia, but the above was the most important failing.
Which is about $2 mil an hour. And how much does to open a new store? Are shareholders who get a chunk of that not allowed to earn on their investments? And for a company with that many employees to make a profit is a good thing. They pay taxes on it too.
No one is saying they don't have a right to make a profit. But, when that profit comes from abusing government handouts on both sides, you have to ask, is that really a profit you should be defending? This is a company that depends on government handouts for their employees to be able to afford to work for them, and then takes those same government handouts back. This is little different than the old 'company store' approach.
I don't shop at Walmart - why are my taxes subsidizing their bottom line? Do you really believe that Walmart's shareholders deserve to have their hands in your pockets because of their investment?
So if lower wages is the way that welfare leads to profits, then let’s talk about labor supply and labor demand. To have welfare lead to lower wages would mean that it increases labor supply, so that the welfare leads more people want to work for a given wage. Does this sound plausible to you? Remove yourself from the context of trying to prove or disprove something about corporations and try to think of whether you’d take such a claim very seriously. Outside of the EITC, which most are not talking about here, I don’t see any argument here at all. What’s more puzzling here is that if we are talking about a subsidy that operates through expansion of labor supply, then you might think this is a good thing given our long-term unemployment problem and declining labor force participation.
So how about labor demand? I can’t think of any reason to believe that welfare leads to lower labor demand that would be needed to drive down wages. Nor can I think of any reason why getting rid of welfare would increase labor demand. I keep reading people saying that welfare “allows” firms to pay less, but can you explain this in terms of the behavior of profit maximizing firms? Does anyone care to cite empirical evidence here?
Overall, I’d really like to see someone explicitly defend the implied claim that if food stamps or medicaid were repealed that wages at Walmart and McDonald’s would actually go up. The way that these pieces are written might allow the authors to weasel out of this claim, but there’s no denying the pieces are written with the intention of conveying that welfare contributes to McDonald’s and Walmart’s profits. I’ve seen some claim that these higher profits from welfare are only relative to the minimum wage. But in the same way you could call any policy a “subsidy” or “corporate welfare” simply by judging it relative to a profit tax. This argument simply presumes a priori that the minimum wage is the “right” way to do it, then judges welfare relative to the minimum wage. If that’s your goal then fine, but it’s misleading to call this a “corporate welfare” and a “subsidy”. At the very least stop proclaiming yourself so puzzled that libertarians aren’t on board with your presumption that the minimum wage is the right baseline.
I don’t think there is any real economic argument here, and what we are seeing is entirely an attempt to raise the status of the minimum wage relative to welfare with branding. What gets some people understandably mad about pieces like this is that the authors are also in effect lowering the status of welfare. The basic argument is: welfare has these bad qualities that you aren’t considering enough, and the minimum wage doesn’t. If alleging downsides of welfare succeeds at raising the status of the minimum wage, it has to have done so by making welfare look worse. I don’t think these writers get that.
Maybe you can find some actual analysis backed by numbers to answer the points that guy makes. I haven't seen any but that does not mean it does not exist.
I do know if you make anything more expensive, to include labor, businesses use less of it.
And for the record, I personally would end Fed Gov't bail outs for banks and businesses. I also think the decades long 'war on poverty' which has seen trillion spent and little change to poverty rates is a massive waste.
Asherian Command wrote: That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.
Except they don't do as much work for the company.
You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.
The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.
If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.
If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)
Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.
Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.
Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.
In fact they skipped the most needed attribute. You need to have first been a Capitalist economy in order to become a Communistic system.
No, the most important ingredient needed for communism to work is you need people to be morally perfect(in which case you wouldn't need communism at all)
Communism and Socialism failed on so many levels with Soviet Russia, but the above was the most important failing.
Nope
Its a common mistake that people often make.
People often think thats the reason, but communisum never assumes someone is perfect, it just getting people to think of products as just numbers.
easysauce wrote: if you understood economics at all... you would see that there are no "true" or "pure" capitalist economies either...
its also ironic, that you are ok with one person having far more pie then they need, and even them wasting it, so long as they are not an *evil* ceo who has more pie then they need (despite working harder/smarter for it)
Actually I think everyone needs a paycut and everyone gets the same amount of money. No one gets higher pay.
at least CEO's actually employ people instead of merly being a face on the screen or hitting a ball around...
Technically, actors and professional athletes probably employ more people than CEOs, if we're applying this to only those who are directly working under their scope
For instance. For an actor, they "employ" (really this is the movie studios) stunt doubles, extras, set builders, camera operators, light/sound operators, special effect people, pyrotechnic people, etc. Once that film is made, they cause the employment of movie house people (the minimum wage, popcorn maker/drink grabber... cash taker at the window, etc.)
All that, because other people are willing to pay money to see that person be something/someone they aren't.
Athletes "employ" stadium ushers, ticket window operators, grounds keepers, stadium announcers, physios/medical staff, concession operators, souvenir shop operators, etc. Outside of their "direct sphere" of influence, you've got media people who are operating cameras (video/still) that give us games/matches on tv as well as sports cards.
Do both categories of people get paid too much? Probably, but at the same time, people are still willing to pay money to see them play make-believe, or play "childrens games"
Sure, CEOs may make some big decisions/make deals to secure their company future, etc. but really they don't cause the employment of their people. It's more the other way around. the people buy their product/service which cause a need to employ people. Or at least, that's how I see it.
Actually I think everyone needs a paycut and everyone gets the same amount of money. No one gets higher pay.
right... cause that makes sense, I will totally spend all that extra personal time, effort, and money learning how to be an engineer, only to make the same amount of $ as a burger flipper makes.
That you honestly cannot see the issues with what you just said is scary...
at least CEO's actually employ people instead of merly being a face on the screen or hitting a ball around...
Technically, no not technically, incorrectly is more like itactors and professional athletes probably employ more people than CEOs, if we're applying this to only those who are directly working under their scope
For instance. For an actor, they "employ" (really this is the movie studiosright its the studios and their managment, not the actor.) stunt doubles, extras, set builders, camera operators, light/sound operators, special effect people, pyrotechnic people, etc. Once that film is made, they cause the employment of movie house people (the minimum wage, popcorn maker/drink grabber... cash taker at the window, etc.).
actually, the person employing all those doubles and stage hands is the SAME PERSON employing the actor... namely the CEO/managment of disney or whatever filmmaker is in question....
so all those benifits of the "movie" trickling down (movie sales, jobs for ticket rippers and floor sweepers, popcorn manufacturer and distribution ect) are in fact, totally unrelated to the actor, and are caused by the top level guys who actually made the investment in the movie...
Actually I think everyone needs a paycut and everyone gets the same amount of money. No one gets higher pay.
right... cause that makes sense, I will totally spend all that extra personal time, effort, and money learning how to be an engineer, only to make the same amount of $ as a burger flipper makes.
That you honestly cannot see the issues with what you just said is scary...
at least CEO's actually employ people instead of merly being a face on the screen or hitting a ball around...
Technically, no not technically, incorrectly is more like itactors and professional athletes probably employ more people than CEOs, if we're applying this to only those who are directly working under their scope
For instance. For an actor, they "employ" (really this is the movie studiosright its the studios and their managment, not the actor.) stunt doubles, extras, set builders, camera operators, light/sound operators, special effect people, pyrotechnic people, etc. Once that film is made, they cause the employment of movie house people (the minimum wage, popcorn maker/drink grabber... cash taker at the window, etc.).
actually, the person employing all those doubles and stage hands is the SAME PERSON employing the actor... namely the CEO/managment of disney or whatever filmmaker is in question....
Because we are human beings, we should get the exact same treatment as other human beings.
Asherian Command wrote: That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.
Except they don't do as much work for the company.
You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.
The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.
If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.
If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)
Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.
Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.
Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.
No, the company doesn't need Steve. They just need the work he does. And anyone can do it. Steve is easily replaceable. Thus he is only worth 16.6K a year while Bob is worth 250k+benefits.
And there are always more people wanting to work than there are positions available.
So if Steve doesn't like his job anymore and demands more pay or he's quitting. Well, he quits and the company hires John to replace him.
So yes, the company can do without Steve far better than it can do without Bob. And so Bob is more valuable, and gets paid 15 times more.
Your organism example however fails because employees are not comparable to organs, but it works when low level employees are comparable to individual cells, managers would be comparable to organs responsible for regulation of areas of the body, and top level executives would be comparable to the nervous system.
Steve in this example is a lowly muscle cell in the bicep. He himself is not particularly important, he only receives a tiny amount of nutrients and follows the commands he receives from nerve impulses. If he has some defect its not particularly important.
Meanwhile, Bob is the heart pumping nutrients throughout the entire body. If he fails, the entire body suffers and its very difficult to get a new heart.
Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.
I just started my new job at a waterpark in the food department. Withing two days I learned nearly everything there is to do. While they where upset of me burning 200 or so hotdogs for the day, they let it slide because I did better later. But like i said, in 10 hours I was able to do nearly any job for most of the kitchen. I wrk hard, but it isnt work that IS hard. Some jobs require more skill, thus you demand a better wage. Like I have been saying,, throwing money at poverty is not the answer. Fundamental problems like culture of poverty, acess to school and so forth are how you fix poverty.
so all those benifits of the "movie" trickling down (movie sales, jobs for ticket rippers and floor sweepers, popcorn manufacturer and distribution ect) are in fact, totally unrelated to the actor, and are caused by the top level guys who actually made the investment in the movie...
Perhaps movies are a bad example to use? I mean, when I go to the movies, I'm not going to see if Bob Disney IV did a good job selecting the right people to fake that they're all baseball or cricket players (to make up a fake CEO name, and use a movie that is currently playing)... No, I go to a movie to see Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do stuff. I go to see Eva Green's bewbs, or ridiculous over-the-top action for the latest Stallone "Expendables" movie. To me, it's kind of circular, as certainly the CEO is putting money on the line, but ultimately, it comes down to the name on the billboard/movie poster that will drive revenue. Even then, most CEOs aren't directly involved with their movies, and the scientific aspect of what movies are deemed a good risk by the studio are usually handled by people further down the flag pole.
Because we are human beings, we should get the exact same treatment as other human beings.
right, have fun in your fairy tale world then...
being equal in worth=/= being paid the same for different work,
Having a ditch digger making the same $ as a surgeon makes does not work...
you will end up with no surgeons because no one is stupid enough to take on all that extra work, responsability, risk, frustration, and so on, when they can just throw a shovel for the same reward.
Asherian Command wrote: That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.
Except they don't do as much work for the company.
You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.
The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.
If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.
If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)
Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.
Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.
Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.
No, the company doesn't need Steve. They just need the work he does. And anyone can do it. Steve is easily replaceable. Thus he is only worth 16.6K a year while Bob is worth 250k+benefits.
And there are always more people wanting to work than there are positions available.
So if Steve doesn't like his job anymore and demands more pay or he's quitting. Well, he quits and the company hires John to replace him.
So yes, the company can do without Steve far better than it can do without Bob. And so Bob is more valuable, and gets paid 15 times more.
Your organism example however fails because employees are not comparable to organs, but it works when low level employees are comparable to individual cells, managers would be comparable to organs responsible for regulation of areas of the body, and top level executives would be comparable to the nervous system.
Steve in this example is a lowly muscle cell in the bicep. He himself is not particularly important, he only receives a tiny amount of nutrients and follows the commands he receives from nerve impulses. If he has some defect its not particularly important.
Meanwhile, Bob is the heart pumping nutrients throughout the entire body. If he fails, the entire body suffers and its very difficult to get a new heart.
Every micropart is important to the cell. So it does work, because it can simply regrow it. Yes he is easily replaced, but that still uses resources. I wouldn't say managers are comparable to an organ, that is just an egositical way of saying this person is more important, when in fact the manager can be replaced, we don't know anything about Steve. Maybe steve is working there because he is paying off student loans? Maybe he is more qualified than his boss. Maybe he is going to school, maybe he isn't. But we don't know. We don't know anything about Steve.
You assume he is an uneducated idiot. Which we do not know. He might be, but he might not be. We can't assume he is.
We can't say who is more qualified because human beings can be taught to do anything. Anyone can be a doctor if they wanted to, anyone can be a manager, anyone can be someone that flips burgers. just because you are in a position like that does not mean that is the only thing you do.
Because we are human beings, we should get the exact same treatment as other human beings.
right, have fun in your fairy tale world then...
being equal in worth=/= being paid the same for different work,
Having a ditch digger making the same $ as a surgeon makes does not work...
you will end up with no surgeons because no one is stupid enough to take on all that extra work, responsability, risk, frustration, and so on, when they can just throw a shovel for the same reward.
Not true, because back during the middle ages, people were paid because of how well they did something, not for how long.
I am merely suggesting that as communisum is a good system its not perfect. There are far better alternatives to economics. The middle age's economic system actually is fundamentally different compared to the capitalist version. WHere the buyer influences how much they pay for something. Not the company.
It should be rated based on how well something is done. Not on how long or what you want someone else to pay.
Yes because that is a fairy tale, this whole idea of equal rights and equal opportunity. Its called trying to work for a better world. Trying to do something about it, instead of accepting it as is.
Economy's fall and rise, they are not forces of nature and they can be changed. They are human made. If it's not working. Change the darn thing.
Jihadin wrote: Everyone needs a pay raise, a living wage, and pay adjustments to COLA. How else can one buy gold for the coming economic collapse of the US
You're not the only one to mention this hahaha.
The signs are everywhere.
In President Obama's speeches this year, a steady theme has been creating jobs and economic opportunity for Americans. In his State of the Union address in January he said that "what I believe unites the people of this nation . . . is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all—the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead." And in his weekly address on Saturday, he repeated his strong appeal to young people: "As long as I hold this office, I'll keep fighting to give more young people the chance to earn their own piece of the American Dream."
Yet during the more than five years Mr. Obama has been in office, young people have been especially hard-hit by the slow and virtually jobless recovery. Given the destructive effect this has on individual initiative and the prospects of a productive and rewarding working life, the continuing struggle of young Americans to find jobs, start building families and contribute to society is no longer simply a matter of politics or policy. On a deeply human level, it's profoundly sad.
Consider these grim employment numbers:
• In February the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recorded the lowest percentage of 16- to 19-year-olds working or actively looking for work (32.9%) since the bureau started tracking the data in 1948. The BLS recorded the second-lowest labor-participation rate for this group in April (33.2%) and the third-lowest in January (33.3%). May's rate was the sixth lowest (33.8%).
• Over the past two years, the BLS has recorded some of the worst labor participation rates for 20- to 24-year-olds since 1973, when the Vietnam War was beginning to wind down. In August 2012, the 69.7% rate was the lowest since '73. The second-lowest (70%) came in March last year. This year, the third-lowest rate came in April (70.2%). May's rate was a still-miserable 71%.
• Looking at the seasonally unadjusted data—which is what the BLS makes publicly available—for 25- to 29-year-olds, the April 2014 labor-participation rate was the lowest the BLS has recorded since it started tracking the data in 1982 (79.8%). May's rate was the second-lowest (79.9%). January, February and March tied with the fourth-lowest (80.3%).
These disturbing numbers raise a simple question: Where are the entry-level jobs?
Five years of 2% average yearly GDP growth simply doesn't produce enough jobs to absorb the natural increase in the labor force, and over the past eight quarters GDP growth has averaged only 1.7%. Between May 2008 and May 2014, BLS data show that the employable population increased by 14,217,000 while the number of people employed actually decreased by 94,000 and the number of people unemployed increased by 1,404,000. It remains a bad time for young people to be looking for jobs.
Nonetheless, various states and municipalities have increased their minimum wage, thereby increasing the cost of employing inexperienced workers. Minimum-wage jobs have always been a gateway to better opportunities. In making hiring decisions, businesses must weigh the quality and value of work that entry-level employees produce against the cost of employing them. For many businesses in high-minimum-wage states or municipalities—Seattle leads the list, having approved a move to a $15 minimum wage—that trade-off is no longer working.
The bottom line on labor: Make something less expensive and businesses will use more of it. Make something more expensive and businesses will use less of it. The Congressional Budget Office has forecast a loss of 500,000 jobs should the president's proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour become law.
The CBO also forecast that this increase would lift a number of people who already have jobs above the poverty threshold. For 500,000 unemployed people, however, that's 500,000 opportunities American businesses will never create.
ObamaCare is also increasing the cost of hiring inexperienced workers. The health-care law requires that businesses with more than 50 full-time employees offer medical insurance to employees working 30 or more hours a week. The administration knows that the employer mandate will kill jobs and has twice delayed implementing it. With an election on the horizon, American businesses know that these delays were political and that the mandate's economically damaging impact is in the pipeline, coming their way.
ObamaCare gives businesses an incentive to either eliminate entry-level jobs or keep the workers' hours to under 30 a week. It also gives businesses a reason to reduce the hours of experienced employees to under 30 a week. These experienced employees are now working second jobs to compensate for their lost hours—resulting in fewer positions for less-experienced workers.
To get on the ladder of opportunity, America's young people need jobs. Creating disincentives to hire them diminishes the notion that "if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead." The reality is that you can't get ahead if you can't find a job.
I'm not speaking primarily as a business CEO. My company will adjust to new laws. I'm speaking as someone from a working-class family. I started work scooping ice cream for the minimum wage at Baskin-Robbins. To put myself through college and law school while supporting my family, I cut lawns, painted houses and busted concrete with a jackhammer. I know how important these jobs are. For one thing, they taught me—as no lectures from my parents ever could—that I needed a good education so I wouldn't have to settle for low-paying work the rest of my life. Too many young people today are being deprived of even that basic lesson.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: If you have read Karl Marx's Book Communism you can see that Russia didn't actually follow the ideas of communism at all.
In fact they skipped the most needed attribute. You need to have first been a Capitalist economy in order to become a Communistic system.
Russia was never a true Communism economy. It was basically a downplayed capitalist economy.
If that person does not want the rest of the pie then they might give it to me or they might get rid of it. It's their choice!
I would disagree, it is very true. I've studied it, and thats what happened.
Capitalism is a very flawed system, just like communisum. Giving everyone the same pay would do wonders. Giving everyone a chance to live is something that would change a lot of things.
Because all jobs are needed for a society to succeed.
Asherian Command wrote: That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.
Except they don't do as much work for the company.
You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.
The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.
If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.
If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)
Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.
Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.
Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.
No, the company doesn't need Steve. They just need the work he does. And anyone can do it. Steve is easily replaceable. Thus he is only worth 16.6K a year while Bob is worth 250k+benefits.
And there are always more people wanting to work than there are positions available.
So if Steve doesn't like his job anymore and demands more pay or he's quitting. Well, he quits and the company hires John to replace him.
So yes, the company can do without Steve far better than it can do without Bob. And so Bob is more valuable, and gets paid 15 times more.
Your organism example however fails because employees are not comparable to organs, but it works when low level employees are comparable to individual cells, managers would be comparable to organs responsible for regulation of areas of the body, and top level executives would be comparable to the nervous system.
Steve in this example is a lowly muscle cell in the bicep. He himself is not particularly important, he only receives a tiny amount of nutrients and follows the commands he receives from nerve impulses. If he has some defect its not particularly important.
Meanwhile, Bob is the heart pumping nutrients throughout the entire body. If he fails, the entire body suffers and its very difficult to get a new heart.
Every micropart is important to the cell. So it does work, because it can simply regrow it. Yes he is easily replaced, but that still uses resources. I wouldn't say managers are comparable to an organ, that is just an egositical way of saying this person is more important, when in fact the manager can be replaced, we don't know anything about Steve. Maybe steve is working there because he is paying off student loans? Maybe he is more qualified than his boss. Maybe he is going to school, maybe he isn't. But we don't know. We don't know anything about Steve.
You assume he is an uneducated idiot. Which we do not know. He might be, but he might not be. We can't assume he is.
We can't say who is more qualified because human beings can be taught to do anything. Anyone can be a doctor if they wanted to, anyone can be a manager, anyone can be someone that flips burgers. just because you are in a position like that does not mean that is the only thing you do.
Thing is, it takes A Lot more time to train a surgeon than to train a shelf-stocker. Same for management. And if the guy isn't educated in the field he's employed in, the education ain't worth jack to his employer. Would it be nice if he could pay off his loans faster? Yeah, but really, having a load of debt and a degree in English Lit does not make Steve more valuable than Carl, a hard-worker who just happened to have dropped out of highschool. In fact, all else being equal, Carl might be a better investment for the employer, because he won't go off to something he's "Qualified" for. Instead, he may stick around, and be worth grooming for a night manager position or something.
I would disagree, it is very true. I've studied it, and thats what happened.
Capitalism is a very flawed system, just like communisum. Giving everyone the same pay would do wonders. Giving everyone a chance to live is something that would change a lot of things.
Because all jobs are needed for a society to succeed.
I'm sure you've studied it extensively but you are flat out wrong. If you do not reward skilled labor, you will not have skilled laborers.
Either way.. you are taking this way off topic because this is a discussion about minimum wage.
I would disagree, it is very true. I've studied it, and thats what happened.
Capitalism is a very flawed system, just like communisum. Giving everyone the same pay would do wonders. Giving everyone a chance to live is something that would change a lot of things.
Because all jobs are needed for a society to succeed.
I'm sure you've studied it extensively but you are flat out wrong. If you do not reward skilled labor, you will not have skilled laborers.
Either way.. you are taking this way off topic because this is a discussion about minimum wage.
Well I agree the Minimum wage will not work. It will only fluctuate the market and economy.
Its a problem if anyone thinks just raising the pay raise will do anything. Regulation of the companies and ensuring they do not freak out would probably help.
Asherian Command wrote: That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.
Except they don't do as much work for the company.
You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.
The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.
If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.
If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)
Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.
Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.
Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.
No, the company doesn't need Steve. They just need the work he does. And anyone can do it. Steve is easily replaceable. Thus he is only worth 16.6K a year while Bob is worth 250k+benefits.
And there are always more people wanting to work than there are positions available.
So if Steve doesn't like his job anymore and demands more pay or he's quitting. Well, he quits and the company hires John to replace him.
So yes, the company can do without Steve far better than it can do without Bob. And so Bob is more valuable, and gets paid 15 times more.
Your organism example however fails because employees are not comparable to organs, but it works when low level employees are comparable to individual cells, managers would be comparable to organs responsible for regulation of areas of the body, and top level executives would be comparable to the nervous system.
Steve in this example is a lowly muscle cell in the bicep. He himself is not particularly important, he only receives a tiny amount of nutrients and follows the commands he receives from nerve impulses. If he has some defect its not particularly important.
Meanwhile, Bob is the heart pumping nutrients throughout the entire body. If he fails, the entire body suffers and its very difficult to get a new heart.
Every micropart is important to the cell. So it does work, because it can simply regrow it. Yes he is easily replaced, but that still uses resources. I wouldn't say managers are comparable to an organ, that is just an egositical way of saying this person is more important, when in fact the manager can be replaced, we don't know anything about Steve. Maybe steve is working there because he is paying off student loans? Maybe he is more qualified than his boss. Maybe he is going to school, maybe he isn't. But we don't know. We don't know anything about Steve.
You assume he is an uneducated idiot. Which we do not know. He might be, but he might not be. We can't assume he is.
We can't say who is more qualified because human beings can be taught to do anything. Anyone can be a doctor if they wanted to, anyone can be a manager, anyone can be someone that flips burgers. just because you are in a position like that does not mean that is the only thing you do.
Thing is, it takes A Lot more time to train a surgeon than to train a shelf-stocker. Same for management. And if the guy isn't educated in the field he's employed in, the education ain't worth jack to his employer. Would it be nice if he could pay off his loans faster? Yeah, but really, having a load of debt and a degree in English Lit does not make Steve more valuable than Carl, a hard-worker who just happened to have dropped out of highschool. In fact, all else being equal, Carl might be a better investment for the employer, because he won't go off to something he's "Qualified" for. Instead, he may stick around, and be worth grooming for a night manager position or something.
Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.
But lets get back on topic mainly on minimum wage.
...
Maybe you can find some actual analysis backed by numbers to answer the points that guy makes. I haven't seen any but that does not mean it does not exist.
Look at the financial returns for Walmart from the point where SNAP assistance was reduced.
I do know if you make anything more expensive, to include labor, businesses use less of it.
That's not actually true. If it were, trucking companies would see usage change with gas prices, but they don't. Sometimes, something has to get done, regardless of the cost. I don't disagree that most public companies operate primarily for the benefit of the investor, and that's one the big changes in philosophy that happened in this country, and largely not in Europe, that has contributed to the insane inequality here (and also, not in Europe). In Europe, corporate responsibility leads to an environment where the good of the employees and community are considered alongside the returns for the investor.
I had a read a really good article on how this change took place, but I can't find it now. Needless to say, it's not the normal model in much of Europe, and certainly not in the countries that you'd want to emulate (Germany, Finland, Sweden). For the .01%, the US offers far more luxuries and benefits than most of the rest of the world, but for 99% of people (most likely including everyone reading this forum), you'd be better off somewhere else. Why you're defending the US economic model is beyond me, as the results don't do much to justify your faith in it.
Anyway, Walmart (again) has experienced significant problems trying to reduce their labor costs in the last few years. It's one of the things cited as to why Costco is outperforming Walmart, despite paying an average of almost double. Walmart cut staffing, and found that people couldn't buy cheap stuff that was left on the loading dock. Would you believe that someone has to actually unload the box and put the goods on the shelves in order for people to buy them? I'm sure there are places where employment can be reduced, but businesses have to be very careful about that - there's a reason you hire someone, and it's generally because you have work for them to do.
It's easy to say that higher wages will result in job losses, but would you believe that we've raised the minimum wage many times in the past, all for the same reason (natural inflation has negated it's ability to provide a living wage, the founding principle of the minimum wage), and both society and businesses have survived every time. It would seem to be a testament to the inability of our politicians to ever get anything right that we have to have this debate every decade or so, rather than tying the minimum wage to basic economic indexes and letting it auto-compensate on a yearly basis. In a truly just society, we'd tie the pay of the politicians to a multiple of the minimum wage.
Asherian Command wrote: Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.
Asherian Command wrote: Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.
Hey Marx was interesting but it doesn't mean he was a 100% correct. Just like John Locke who created capitalism. Both systems are flawed. But if we combined what was best between the two we might have a perfect system.
...
Maybe you can find some actual analysis backed by numbers to answer the points that guy makes. I haven't seen any but that does not mean it does not exist.
Look at the financial returns for Walmart from the point where SNAP assistance was reduced.
I do know if you make anything more expensive, to include labor, businesses use less of it.
That's not actually true. If it were, trucking companies would see usage change with gas prices, but they don't. Sometimes, something has to get done, regardless of the cost. I don't disagree that most public companies operate primarily for the benefit of the investor, and that's one the big changes in philosophy that happened in this country, and largely not in Europe, that has contributed to the insane inequality here (and also, not in Europe). In Europe, corporate responsibility leads to an environment where the good of the employees and community are considered alongside the returns for the investor.
I know you'll find this hard to believe, but you are wrong. Higher (and unstable) fuel costs have directly contributed to intermodal freight shifts in transportation as well as changes in things like weight/volume of packaging which lead to less $$$ being spent on the transport of the goods. If I can pack 100 TVs on the truck due to new packaging than the 95 I used to fit on the truck, I use less fuel per TV. As fuel costs rise companies re-look how they move freight and conduct warehousing operations.
3.4.2. Fluctuating Fuel Prices Fuel prices have an impact on sourcing and mode choice decisions. While cheap petroleum-based fuels helped drive globalization over the past few decades, fuel prices doubled between 2006 and 2008, increasing the portion of carriers’ operating costs devoted to fuel from a historic average of approximately 15% to over 40% (Gordon 2009). For importers, fuel prices in the fall of 2008, when oil prices were around $100 per barrel, were equivalent to an 11% tariff on containerized goods, up from the equivalent of 3% in 2006 when oil was $20 per barrel (Solomon 2009). While fuel prices have moderated since their peak, the movement towards shorter supply chains may accelerate as the global economy begins to recover and fuel prices are driven higher by increasing and more volatile demand. One early example of this trend is Tesla motors, based in California, which recently canceled plans to produce its 1,000-pound batteries in Thailand, opting for a closer source, thereby reducing the shipping distance of each battery by approximately 5,000 miles (Gordon 2009). Fluctuating fuel prices make higher-fuel-consuming modes, such as truck, less cost-effective and more volatile and may lead some shippers to investigate the use of alternative modes, particularly rail, for some commodities and trade lanes.
see Graph page 25
For trucking, fuel costs in early 2010 accounted for 31% of marginal operating costs per mile; driver labor costs for 36%. These proportions have varied considerably in recent years with fuel accounting for 38% in 2008 and 28% in 2009 (American Transportation Research Institute 2011). The cost and volatility of fuel prices in the past decade has been a major factor pushing the motor carrier industry to search for more fuel-efficient engines and transmissions, more aerodynamically clean truck shapes, and more efficient head-haul and back-haul routing and dispatching.
Okay, so trucking may not be the right example. I think you'll agree, though, that there are some things that companies cannot use less of just because the price changes.
It's such an obvious idea that there's even an economic term for it, inelastic demand.
If you need to stock the shelves in your store, there's a set amount of work that needs to be done, and you can't magically hand-wave away employees while still expecting it to get done.
Redbeard wrote: Okay, so trucking may not be the right example. I think you'll agree, though, that there are some things that companies cannot use less of just because the price changes.
It's such an obvious idea that there's even an economic term for it, inelastic demand.
If you need to stock the shelves in your store, there's a set amount of work that needs to be done, and you can't magically hand-wave away employees while still expecting it to get done.
Wrong again. Used to be a set number of registers equaled a set number of cashiers. Now we have self check out. The price of labor goes high enough and stocking mechanisms (to include how loads are packed for shelving and other efficiencies and automation efforts) will become economically viable. Or I cut employees further in other areas. Bottom line, labor prices go up, the companies WILL find a way to use less. Labor (especially unskilled labor) is not inelastic.
I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.
I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.
Ouze wrote: I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.
I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.
I see it all the time now in St. Louis... you'd get used to it.
The real change is "self checkout" at fastfood joints.
Ouze wrote: I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.
I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.
Self-checkouts near me work fantastically and I use them almost exclusively with zero issue. And one employee can oversee 6-10 checkout devices and there is usually never a backup as a majority of people have become used to them. Every grocery store, big box store and hardware store within 50 miles of me seems to have self checkout now.
Also, places who have removed fast-food cashiers with Made-to-order kiosks for ordering food are also much better. I can place my food order, and verify it with zero staff interaction, and they simply prepare the food. accuracy is way up too. Never had an order wrong with a location with MTO food.
Stores are simply eliminating cashiers or putting the work on the consumer. Eliminating jobs in response to making wages more expensive.
Ouze wrote: I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.
I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.
Redbeard wrote: Okay, so trucking may not be the right example. I think you'll agree, though, that there are some things that companies cannot use less of just because the price changes.
It's such an obvious idea that there's even an economic term for it, inelastic demand.
If you need to stock the shelves in your store, there's a set amount of work that needs to be done, and you can't magically hand-wave away employees while still expecting it to get done.
Wrong again. Used to be a set number of registers equaled a set number of cashiers. Now we have self check out. The price of labor goes high enough and stocking mechanisms (to include how loads are packed for shelving and other efficiencies and automation efforts) will become economically viable. Or I cut employees further in other areas. Bottom line, labor prices go up, the companies WILL find a way to use less. Labor (especially unskilled labor) is not inelastic.
You're drawing an incorrect assumption that added productivity is due to increase costs. Costs could stay the same, and increased productivity would still be beneficial. Either you're arguing that no one will ever seek to cut costs unless costs go up, or you're being rather over-eager to yell out "you're wrong".
nkelsch wrote: Also, places who have removed fast-food cashiers with Made-to-order kiosks for ordering food are also much better. I can place my food order, and verify it with zero staff interaction, and they simply prepare the food. accuracy is way up too. Never had an order wrong with a location with MTO food.
We're talking about something different now. I have not used a MTO kiosk for fast food but would like to as I agree, it's going to avoid a ton of transposition errors.
nkelsch wrote: Stores are simply eliminating cashiers or putting the work on the consumer. Eliminating jobs in response to making wages more expensive.
They'd implement automation wherever they could anyway.
Ouze wrote: I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.
I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.
I think LEO, Judge, or whatever court of law favor my side if I beat that self check out register with a 2 by 4to infinite pieces. Repeatedly. PTSD you know...
sebster wrote: One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.
In the US, you see $22 for a steak and you think that's a pretty good price, but then you get the bill and you've got a whole bunch of other stuff on top of that, to which you add a tip. It was a running joke when we were over there - "I wonder how much this will actually cost? Let's find out!"
I know! When I went on vacation in the UK it was refresing that if the price was 5 pounds it was actually 5 pounds! In Canada you have to add the sales tax which is made up of two diffrent taxes then the tip then there may be other taxes like an alcohol tax. I admit the Brits have it right on this one and apparently the Aussies too if you're like that.
Frazzled wrote: Its an excellent way to cover up how much tax you are paying. Its like paying for gasoline. You see the end price and think "evil oil companies" You don't see that half of it is taxes.
Thanks Obama!
Only if you've got a hopelessly designed tax system that applies all kinds of different rates to mildly different goods. Have a single goods and services tax at say 10% and you know every good you buy the tax is 1/11 of the price paid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The point I was trying to make Seb is that many Service Oriented Unions generally peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
That's all I was pointing out.
I know. You make that point in all of these national minimum wage threads
The point I was making is that the political motivations of anyone involved is irrelevant. Outside of a handful of nutters on each side, most of us agree that less people in poverty is bad and also that job losses are bad. So the only question is whether any particular change in minimum wage will deliver enough of the former to justify the latter, and that's essentially a technocratic question, answered by econometric analysis.
:shrugs: we'll definitely see what sort of impact, for good or ill, this will have rather quickly.
Well, my guess is that the cost of living will be high in Seattle either way, and the overall improving macroeconomic conditions will make it very hard to pick out the jobs impact of this law. So instead anyone trying to make a story of this in a year or two will pick out anecdotes to make the political point they'd already decided on before they set out to make a story - either they'll talk about a business or two that has closed down, or they'll talk about someone who used to be going backwards who is now able to just keep their head above water.
And there's a fair chance those stories will get posted on dakka, and the debate that follows will have the same people making all the same arguments all over again
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: An 8.5% increase on a 5$ meal is 42 cents... Define 'marginal'? And why raise prices when you can fight back and put a surcharge on to shift the blame and responsibility?
Because the consumer at the end of the day is driven by what he paid in total for the product. You could sell an 8c burger and add a 'because you've got dreamy eyes' tax of 99c and ultimately the consumer will know he just got stuck paying $1.07 for the burger. If the guy over the road is selling a burger of the same quality for 99c... well figure who's going to have growing sales, and who's going to have declining sales.
That's the reason business don't just charge more. I mean, think about it, if the business could just choose to charge more, why wouldn't it? Because of competition. That competition exerts a downward pressure on prices whether policies you're politically opposed to exist or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Yep yep! I agree with you, but personally it would be better if there was a maximum wage. For all workers. All workers. That would fix the rich problem. Permanently.
This was tried, sort of, by Clinton. Executive pay over a million bucks was only tax deductible if performance criteria was met. It was a disaster that promoted executive remuneration in to bonus schemes, and led to a massive blow out in executive pay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: yes, lets limit sucess and also limit the reward factor that drives the best of us to perform to the best of their abilities...
Behavioural economics tells us that the material motivation past the first few million is basically zero. The best and brightest aren't working harder because they hope they can go from $10 million a year to $11 million a year, and add another supercar to the fleet.
Instead, we learn that the drive at point is either from the work itself (love of the game, so to speak), or from status - earning more than other people.
Now, that doesn't mean we should start capping high incomes. For a start it would just shift the money from the CEO to the company owners, which is counter-productive when the really big income earners are the owners of capital, and not the skilled labour. And it's also a near impossible thing to do - if a company wants to find a way to reward its CEO it will figure out how to avoid any government limits.
But we do need to move away from that very simple idea that people work purely for material reward and therefore any challenge to that will automatically lead to less work being done, because it is so much more complex than that.
That 20 million isn't going straight into executive pockets. It gets split among the executives, any company expansion, retained earnings, stock dividends, and overhead. It goes away fast.
I'm sorry, did you just challenge someone else's understanding of business, and then claim that profit gets eaten up by overhead? Because wow that's a really basic error.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: you may as well post a chart that lists the average movie star's pay rate compared to the average workers pay rate....
pretty sure americain actors and pro sports players are ALSO disproportionatly paid compared to the rest of the world,
at least CEO's actually employ people instead of merly being a face on the screen or hitting a ball around...
First up, whenever the extreme inequality in incomes get mentioned someone always mentions movie stars and sports stars. But the pay of even the highest paid athletes and actors is dwarfed by the incomes of the biggest earners. In fact the entire payroll of all major league baseball teams is less than what three or four hedge fund managers took home in 2013.
If you want to understand how it works here's a handy chart for you;
The second point is that CEOs don't employ anyone. A CEO isn't an island of jobs that we attach ourselves to. In fact the CEO is just another guy working in a job, albeit earning a lot more than most of us. What actually creates jobs is demand for a product or service - which companies will form to meet that demand in order to make product. Which produces a feedback loop, in which jobs created by the company in order to meet that demand in turn generate new demand, as the employees look to spend their incomes, creating new companies and so on. The CEO is merely just one piece of specialised labour in that process - this thing about job creators is simplistic political nonsense.
I think it's also important to differentiate movie/sports stars from CEOs due to the inherent different reason they make money.
A sports star makes money because people want to pay to see that star. Consider baseball, and I'm probably underestimating the numbers, but with 80 home games, and 30,000 people in the crowd with an average ticket price of $30, they're generating 72 million dollars. (This discounts other sales, like concessions, souveneirs and parking, as well as TV contracts). That's in ticket sales alone. If the players aren't getting a substantial portion of that money, something's wrong.
(you can compare this with similar figures from minor league teams and see exactly how much value stars add. )
Same for musicians. If you're one of the lucky fraction of musicians to make it big, you're generating a lot of cash on tour, because 70,000 people will pay $200 a seat to see the Rolling Stones, in each city they visit. If Mick and Keith don't deserve the lion's share of that cash, I don't know who does.
Most musicians, however, have no where near this level of success. Watching a video by a newer band that I like, talking about their tour, they basically said their goal is to make enough each night to pay for the next show.
CEOs on the other hand, are responsible for remarkably little of a businesses success. They can establish long-term strategies, and try to implement them, but, with the exception of a few notable individuals, they're not doing anything particularly impressive. The problem is that they all want to think they're rock stars, while most of them are just musicians. I'm willing to believe that a Steve Jobs was worth what he was paid, but Meg Whitman? CEOs want to convince you that they do a lot, but watching how they come and go at different companies, there's really not a huge impact to be found there.
Again, pointing to a company that I think 'gets it', the CEO of Costco doesn't believe he's a rockstar, and while he makes a very nice salary of about $350k, is certainly not making many multiples of what the average worker there is making, nor putting his own good well before the good of the employees under him.
CEO salaries are impacted by this rockstar mentality. Each board wants to believe they've got an above-average CEO, and so each board approves an above-average pay package for their CEO. No one wants to think they hired the bargain-basement guy. (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/10/21/131021ta_talk_surowiecki)
So, while the top-level athletes and musicians are superstars, and it can be easily shown how they justify their salaries, most CEOs are not superstars, and we should stop treating them as such.
So, while the top-level athletes and musicians are superstars, and it can be easily shown how they justify their salaries, most CEOs are not superstars, and we should stop treating them as such.
I think that it's also important to look at where many CEOs and CEO types come from... IIRC, the CEOs of many European companies (such as BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, etc) started at the "bottom"... ie. they got their college degree in something, got a position in the company, and have been climbing the ranks proving through their work ethic and products that they are worth having higher up the company... Many/most CEOs in America.. were CEOs at another company before moving to the one theyre at now.
So, while the top-level athletes and musicians are superstars, and it can be easily shown how they justify their salaries, most CEOs are not superstars, and we should stop treating them as such.
I think that it's also important to look at where many CEOs and CEO types come from... IIRC, the CEOs of many European companies (such as BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, etc) started at the "bottom"... ie. they got their college degree in something, got a position in the company, and have been climbing the ranks proving through their work ethic and products that they are worth having higher up the company... Many/most CEOs in America.. were CEOs at another company before moving to the one theyre at now.
But they had to have not been CEOs at some point. Just because they swapped jobs at some point doesn't mean they were always at the top.
And their decisions certainly matter for the profitability of the company. Otherwise what company would bother having a CEO at all?
Asherian Command wrote: Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.
Communal ownership of the means of production doesn't have to mean that a surgeon gets the same amount of money as a burger flipper.
Asherian Command wrote: Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.
Communal ownership of the means of production doesn't have to mean that a surgeon gets the same amount of money as a burger flipper.
But the regional supervisor makes the same as specialized surgeon maybe
Grey Templar wrote: And their decisions certainly matter for the profitability of the company. Otherwise what company would bother having a CEO at all?
I think the main issue I find with this statement is the idea that you can do away with something just because it doesn't make an obvious difference. I could just as easily say that the janitorial staff for the HQ of a company probably don't make much of a difference in terms of the company's profitability, but no one is saying to get rid of all the janitors, or that the job they do isn't needed.
Someone needs to be the boss, even if it's just a figurehead. Someone needs to have final sign-off on things. Someone has to be the guy to go play golf with the vendors... But, that's not a particularly difficult job, especially not in a company that has many divisions and trusted department heads. How many CEOs really understand every aspect of their business? There's some evidence that suggests that the primary job of a CEO isn't even handling the business, but it is in managing stockholder expectations.
I don't think that CEOs, in general, add no value. But I do think that the CEO, in specific, does not add so much more value that their salaries in the US system would indicate. I think the ratio for CEO to worker pay as seen in Europe is far more in-line with the actual added value a CEO creates. And, I think that most CEOs are largely interchangeable, the idea that every company both has, and pays for, an above-average CEO is pretty silly when you spell it out.
Grey Templar wrote: And their decisions certainly matter for the profitability of the company. Otherwise what company would bother having a CEO at all?
I think the main issue I find with this statement is the idea that you can do away with something just because it doesn't make an obvious difference. I could just as easily say that the janitorial staff for the HQ of a company probably don't make much of a difference in terms of the company's profitability, but no one is saying to get rid of all the janitors, or that the job they do isn't needed.
Someone needs to be the boss, even if it's just a figurehead. Someone needs to have final sign-off on things. Someone has to be the guy to go play golf with the vendors... But, that's not a particularly difficult job, especially not in a company that has many divisions and trusted department heads. How many CEOs really understand every aspect of their business? There's some evidence that suggests that the primary job of a CEO isn't even handling the business, but it is in managing stockholder expectations.
I don't think that CEOs, in general, add no value. But I do think that the CEO, in specific, does not add so much more value that their salaries in the US system would indicate. I think the ratio for CEO to worker pay as seen in Europe is far more in-line with the actual added value a CEO creates. And, I think that most CEOs are largely interchangeable, the idea that every company both has, and pays for, an above-average CEO is pretty silly when you spell it out.
Personally, and I may be somewhat off on this... but I'd look at it similar to the US presidential campaigns... In the past, we've seen candidates make statements like "I'll lower the price of a gallon of gas"... Well, the President doesn't actually have any real ability to do this. He/she can make policy that people under them follow through on, which may or may not have any impact on their earlier statement. I see many CEOs as being the same way. They'll say "We are going to produce a product that is of higher quality and lower cost than any of our competitors" ... Well, they can't directly do that, unless they are also the only engineer/manufacturer/tester, etc. They will make company policy that the people under them will carry out and they'll either succeed in that statement of higher quality/lower cost, or they won't.
Redbeard wrote: I don't think that CEOs, in general, add no value. But I do think that the CEO, in specific, does not add so much more value that their salaries in the US system would indicate. I think the ratio for CEO to worker pay as seen in Europe is far more in-line with the actual added value a CEO creates. And, I think that most CEOs are largely interchangeable, the idea that every company both has, and pays for, an above-average CEO is pretty silly when you spell it out.
Yep. The ultimate point is that we have little idea how much value a CEO adds. The number of CEOs is too shallow, and the skillsets of various potential CEOs too dissimilar for us to simply assume that what the market pays must be the marginal return and therefore what they contribute to the company. And companies themselves will freely state that it is near impossible to assess how well a CEO has performed until years after their appointment, because accounting returns can't predict future growth, and stock price is decided more by market forces than company return.
The simple fact is we have a vague idea at best of how valuable CEOs on the whole tend to be to a good company. Assessing the value of one CEO in specific is almost impossible, even in hindsight. Assessing how valuable a CEO will be in future is basically just guesswork.
As such, the only justification for CEO pay is that the board of the company felt that was what the right man was worth, and they're at least somewhat confident they've got the right man. And to an extent that's good enough, because free market and all that.
But any attempt to claim that person is worth that much and therefore society can't step in and take a reasonable portion of that income in order to fund social programs... well that's just nutty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: and no sebster, the "profit motivation" does not magically cap at 10 mill.
if you already make 10 mill, and someone offers you 11mill for the same job, you are very much motivated to take the higher offer.
You don't understand what I'm saying. No-one is saying that people just stop chasing more money at 10 million*. Look at the term I used - material motivation. That part is the material reward you gain from each new dollar. So for instance, going from $40k to $44k might mean you can go out for dinner a few times a month. From $400k to $440k it might mean you can now buy a membership in an exclusive club and eat there when you please. From $10m to $11m it doesn't mean much at all, there's really no material experience that's denied to you.
Now, there is another part of income that matters - status. People like to earn more to beat other people, make more than the Joneses, have a nicer house than the Joneses and so on. That effect doesn't go away.
And still present is the other important motivating factor - the work itself. People work for more than just their pay, they work because they enjoy the work, and enjoy what their work has produced. CEOs will work upwards of 80 hours a week, and spend many nights away from their family. They don't do this because they hope that with a little more work they might move their pay from 10m a year to 11m a year. They do it because they are engrossed in the work, in making the company a success.
*Actually 10 million is just a convenient cut off. The tendency begins long before then, arguably from dollar 2 if you want to draw the trend line back far enough. 10 million is just a nice convenient figure at which the trend has long since hit zero and we can comfortably say there is no longer a material element to income.
sebster wrote: Look at the term I used - material motivation. That part is the material reward you gain from each new dollar. So for instance, going from $40k to $44k might mean you can go out for dinner a few times a month. From $400k to $440k it might mean you can now buy a membership in an exclusive club and eat there when you please. From $10m to $11m it doesn't mean much at all, there's really no material experience that's denied to you.
its 1 million "material motivation" difference...
Rewards are not subject to the diminishing returns you are claiming they do, if they did, no company/person would bother making more the X amount...
you claiming that gaining and extra 4k a year makes more difference then gaining 1 mill a year is ludicrous... going from a few nights out at dinner, to a few more nights out for dinner? YAWWWNNNNNN thats not motivating at all...
an extra house, or 1 million in extra philanthropy, a down payment on VTOL craft, a nice picasso, taking a trip to paris for dinner, heck go buy a presidency or political office,
all those things sound way more materially motivating then whatever a few K will buy.
there is also the whole "my family and all my descendants can use the money" factor.
so yes, indisputable fact, more money, allows for you to do more, and is more motivating, the diminishing returns, if any, are completely subjective based on the individual, not on any amount of $.
a theory that is total, utter, hog wash, to claim the materiel motivation of a few thousand matters more then a million, just because you already have a few million.
in reality, money is the only reason most people go to work in the first place, ask anyone, if they would be more motivated to go to work if they were given more money to do so, and 99% will say yes...
easysauce wrote: its 1 million "material motivation" difference...
Yes, and 1 million on top of the 10 million a person is already earning gets relatively little more utility. Go read about declining utility. Please don't waste time trying to argue when you know nothing about this.
Rewards are not subject to the diminishing returns you are claiming they do, if they did, no company/person would bother making more the X amount...
They still attempt to earn more money, this is for reasons I have already explained this to you. Please read what I am fething explaining to you.
"Now, there is another part of income that matters - status. People like to earn more to beat other people, make more than the Joneses, have a nicer house than the Joneses and so on. That effect doesn't go away.
And still present is the other important motivating factor - the work itself. People work for more than just their pay, they work because they enjoy the work, and enjoy what their work has produced. CEOs will work upwards of 80 hours a week, and spend many nights away from their family. They don't do this because they hope that with a little more work they might move their pay from 10m a year to 11m a year. They do it because they are engrossed in the work, in making the company a success."
Anyhow, you're actually trying to reject the idea of declining utility. That is fething incredible. I mean here I'm just explaining a concept that's been a cornerstone of economics for generations, which has been studied and expanded on for a decade through behavioural economics, and you're just saying 'nuh uh'. I'm almost tempted to respect your moxie.
you claiming that gaining and extra 4k a year makes more difference then gaining 1 mill a year is ludicrous... going from a few nights out at dinner, to a few more nights out for dinner? YAWWWNNNNNN thats not motivating at all...
an extra house, or 1 million in extra philanthropy, a down payment on VTOL craft, a nice picasso, taking a trip to paris for dinner, heck go buy a presidency or political office,
all those things sound way more materially motivating then whatever a few K will buy.
Yes, a VTOL would be lovely. But if that's what the person wanted, then that's easily within reach with the first ten million. Or the ten million they'd earn the next year.
there is also the whole "my family and all my descendants can use the money" factor.
Actually, behavioural economics has shown very little evidence of people earning money in order to leave it for their children. This was cleverly studied by comparing people with immediate inheritors and those without, and they found no behavioural difference between the two groups. In other words, people with no direct, important descendants will focus just as much on asset accumulation up until they die as those with loved ones whom they intend to inherit their fortunes.
Which I thought was actually pretty surprising, to be honest. Though it does explain all those stupidly rich people who die with no will, or who leave their fortunes to their cats.
so yes, indisputable fact, more money, allows for you to do more, and is more motivating, the diminishing returns, if any, are completely subjective based on the individual, not on any amount of $.
Of course they vary by the individual. The issue is that across a population you see trends emerge.
