Quantcast

Raising the minimum wage:

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
BurlySurly said:
Its just more whining by the have-nots. CEOs deserve whatever raise they give themselves. The health of their companies rest on their shoulders.
Wow. Does congress also deserve the pay raises that they vote in for themselves? Do you like to do things like beat yourself in the face with meat tenderizers too?

I've worked with and for C-level execs, and I can tell you that some of them do deserve an awful lot, and some of them deserve nothing at all. Having the
"health of their company" on their shoulders doesn't mean **** if they don't actually help improve that health. MANY CEOs have seen they're wages and bonuses increase dramatically, despite they're companies health decreasing. Tell me what is right about that. Nothing.

They've run their companies into the ground due to messed up incentives and protections, and they walk away with millions, leaving workers and shareholders with nothing.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
BurlySurly said:
I disagree that a raise in minimum wage of $2 over 4 or 8 years as Kerry suggested will have much effect on the number of people recieving welfare. You can reduce the number of people on welfare by supporting businesses that create jobs, right?
Wrong. If the jobs pay minimum wage at it's current levels, people make more money staying on welfare than working, because welfare actually provides enough money for someone to live on.
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,329
5
in da shed, mon, in da shed
fluff said:
Who should it be regulated by?
Economically speaking, the market in which the position is located. A Federal minimum wage makes little sense. A retail worker in San Francisco requires considerably more to live than one in Tumbleturd, AL. A Federal Minimum Wage is nothing but a fabricated political bone over which to wrangle and use as a candidate differentiation tool in the absence of a real decision model.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
ohio said:
Wow. Does congress also deserve the pay raises that they vote in for themselves? Do you like to do things like beat yourself in the face with meat tenderizers too?

I've worked with and for C-level execs, and I can tell you that some of them do deserve an awful lot, and some of them deserve nothing at all. Having the
"health of their company" on their shoulders doesn't mean **** if they don't actually help improve that health. MANY CEOs have seen they're wages and bonuses increase dramatically, despite they're companies health decreasing. Tell me what is right about that. Nothing.

They've run their companies into the ground due to messed up incentives and protections, and they walk away with millions, leaving workers and shareholders with nothing.

What Im saying is that CEO payrates are a private concern. If they give themselves too much, that's on the company, not the government. I didnt mean they actually "deserve" what they get, but that its their decision to make and deal with, so they deal with the result directly. The deserve exactly what they get.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
BurlySurly said:
Are you hinting that its wrong for people at the highest-level management positions to make more money than their workers do?
i don't think it's a hint. he's stating the obvious. on a percentage basis, the executives (regardless of whether or not the company does a good job) have raked in, as compared to rank-and-file employees. it's disgusting because the executive compensation committee (ie, the board of directors) is comprised of other CEOs. so they all glad-hand each other big bonuses and stock packages.

i see nothing wrong w/ the execs making good $; for the most part they have high stress jobs with a lot of responsibility. but you've got to admit that it's gotten out of hand over the last decade or two.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
ohio said:
Wrong. If the jobs pay minimum wage at it's current levels, people make more money staying on welfare than working, because welfare actually provides enough money for someone to live on.
So $2 more in 4-8 years will get those people off welfare? Wrong.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
narlus said:
i don't think it's a hint. he's stating the obvious. on a percentage basis, the executives (regardless of whether or not the company does a good job) have raked in, as compared to rank-and-file employees. it's disgusting because the executive compensation committee (ie, the board of directors) is comprised of other CEOs. so they all glad-hand each other big bonuses and stock packages.

i see nothing wrong w/ the execs making good $; for the most part they have high stress jobs with a lot of responsibility. but you've got to admit that it's gotten out of hand over the last decade or two.
I believe the technical term for that is "displacement of risk" (to the executive, of course...golden parachutes don't help either.)

Or looting...call it what you like.
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
BurlySurly said:
So $2 more in 4-8 years will get those people off welfare? Wrong.
Maybe. Since based a 40 hour work week it would raise the annual income by over $4000. That is a difference I would notice, shyt for some people that's rent for a year.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Lexx D said:
Maybe. Since based a 40 hour work week it would raise the annual income by over $4000. That is a difference I would notice, shyt for some people that's rent for a year.
All Im saying is think of what $2 would get you 8 years ago, as compared to today. Its a political ploy to appeal to poor people. Nothing more.
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
BurlySurly said:
Are you hinting that its wrong for people at the highest-level management positions to make more money than their workers do?
oh yeah kinda like when my dad didnt get a christmas bonus like he did every year because the company couldnt afford it but his department managager got almost 1.5 million for his bonus?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
biggins said:
oh yeah kinda like when my dad didnt get a christmas bonus like he did every year because the company couldnt afford it but his department managager got almost 1.5 million for his bonus?
Your dad didn't go into a big rant in front of the Christmas tree that ended up with your loser uncle kidnapping said manager, did he?
;)
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
$5/hr x 40 hr x 50 wks = 10,000
$7/hr x 40 hr x 50wks = 14,000
Factor in time-and-a-half OT, and one is a living wage in average America, and one is not.

The second is also enough, that a spouse can cut to part time and take classes.
It IS enough to get some (but far from all) people off of welfare.

It may be a political ploy in this case, but minimum wages DO need to go up.

AND CEO wages and and salaries need to be better tied to the company performance before you go spouting off about "what they deserve." If their compensation was dependent on the true performance of the company, I guarantee we would not see the level of wage and bonus inflation we have, and CEOs would definitely be more careful about sucking money out of their company and into their pockets.
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
BurlySurly said:
All Im saying is think of what $2 would get you 8 years ago, as compared to today. Its a political ploy to appeal to poor people. Nothing more.
It's not a ploy. The cost of living has gone up and min. wage has not. Where's the problem?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
ohio said:
It IS enough to get some (but far from all) people off of welfare.
Would it be as effective as creating jobs that pay ACTUAL money though, is the question, and I say no. Not many people are willing to work full time for 14K a year, especially if that JUST clears you fo the welfare line. That's breaking your back for not much.
Also, when you just randomly jack up employment costs 40% on about a billion companies, get ready to see price increases that negate some of the raise that you just gave out. That 40% will not seem as much to the workers as the companies. This will also cost some jobs.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,147
796
Lima, Peru, Peru
BurlySurly said:
Would it be as effective as creating jobs that pay ACTUAL money though, is the question, and I say no. Not many people are willing to work full time for 14K a year, especially if that JUST clears you fo the welfare line. That's breaking your back for not much.
Also, when you just randomly jack up employment costs 40% on about a billion companies, get ready to see price increases that negate some of the raise that you just gave out. That 40% will not seem as much to the workers as the companies. This will also cost some jobs.

and here you are assuming the US is a closed economy in which capital yields get invested and re-enter the economy, to create further higher-paying job openings in US soil

BRRRRRRR!!!!!! WRONG!

given globalization, a good chunk of capital gains within the US will end up in overseas investments. and its more likely that those higher-paid jobs can be exported, thus the capital gains will go to invest to create specialized labor overseas, at a cost probably lower than the lower-paying jobs in the US.

i dont think if i owned a labor intensive company in the US, and made an extra 100 million bucks, i would dump them back to the US, when i can get much higher yields for my 100 million bucks in China, SouthAmerica, or any other emerging low cost labor market.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,147
796
Lima, Peru, Peru
and i think lordopie idea on lower taxes on the poor is pretty good, but there is still the problem of welfare.

plus i dont think most US-ers would like to have the poor pay no taxes. plus IMO, wealth distribution should not be dictated by tax brackets, but by keep taxes fair while raising the income for everyone.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
BurlySurly said:
Also, when you just randomly jack up employment costs 40% on about a billion companies, get ready to see price increases that negate some of the raise that you just gave out. That 40% will not seem as much to the workers as the companies. This will also cost some jobs.
I don't even know where to begin to explain why or how this is completely wrong. All I can say, is that now that you're back in school, take some econ classes and get a business oriented summer job.

Even the fast food industry, whose model is the most reliant on minimum wage, will not be hit as hard as you claim. The direct benefit to the consumer IS much greater than the detriment to any company. There is negligeable net job creation or loss as a result of mild min wage changes. There is negligeable inflation depending on the degree of increase.

While I often value your opinion when it comes to other issues because I think you have an interesting conservative viewpoint, on this point you're making assertions that are straight incorrect.

There is nothing random about this increase. Min wage has been artificially dropping to below optimum levels due to fast food industry lobbying power. Among other tihngs, this is DESTROYING higher paying jobs in the food industry.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
ohio said:
I don't even know where to begin to explain why or how this is completely wrong. All I can say, is that now that you're back in school, take some econ classes and get a business oriented summer job.
Well first you say, " It's actually harshest for large national businesses and franchises, which have figured out very efficient ways of maximizing the proportion of minimum wagers they can function with." which says to me that you understand that there is SOME sort of detriment to these businesses. How is it that jackin up labor costs 40% will not drive prices up, mr. economics classes?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
BurlySurly said:
Well first you say, " It's actually harshest for large national businesses and franchises, which have figured out very efficient ways of maximizing the proportion of minimum wagers they can function with." which says to me that you understand that there is SOME sort of detriment to these businesses. How is it that jackin up labor costs 40% will not drive prices up, mr. economics classes?
I haven't looked into the numbers, but fast food is a fairly elastic product, lots of ready substitutes. Just throwing out a possible reason...
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,335
2,448
Hypernormality
LordOpie said:
so no one thinks this could be solved on the tax side? As opposed to raising min.wage?
I actually think that is a good idea. Make the $7K more like $10K and increase the wage to $7, and you're onto a good one. Of course I think just increasing minimum wage is dumb, it needs to be in conjunction with actually making schools work, and decent adult education, and probably welfare reform, although I must admit I have little knowledge of the American welfare system, since I am a well educated upstanding citizen. :)

Seriously though, I think most first world countries have to accept that manufacturing jobs will obviously increasingly be going to developing nations as a tru global economy emerges, and all the minimum wage increases in the world arn't going to change that America (and Europe) need to position themselves as 'the managers' of worldwide corporate processes, or accept that there will inevitably be a huge disparity between rich and poor. There will always be space for high end precision manufacturing, stuff like Hope brakes and Microchips, but making jeans and shoes in the US is a mugs game, as most corporate entities have already figured out.

Edit: The 'Low wage' end of the market which has to exist everywhere needs to be more focussed on the service industry in westernised countries - manufactured products like jeans and shoes will never be profitable to make in the west, but rich corporate executives don't seem to mind paying ever higher amounts for their coffee and expensive fancy lunches. The 'local' service industry has a far better chance of being able to keep up with 'localy' rising costs in the first world than manufacturing which is inherantly more of global market.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
BurlySurly said:
SOME sort of detriment to these businesses. How is it that jackin up labor costs 40% will not drive prices up, mr. economics classes?
I didn't say it wouldn't drive prices up. I said the net effect on jobs was negligable. National fast food companies will be hit; their prices will increase. They will likely lose business, and cut some franchises. However, local food sources will be better able to compete; they can expand, replacing many of the jobs lost. I said food was to be hit the worst, and it STILL isn't a major net effect.

You can't compare 40% of direct benefit, to a 40% change in ONE line-item on a balance sheet of a total business, and then try to claim the line item is going to have a more profound effect.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
BurlySurly said:
Its not an issue of trust for one, its simple math. A company that makes money is going to hire more workers and expand, thus helping the economy and workers themselves. What's so hard to get about that?
You appear to assume that companies want to employ more people but can't afford it, it is actually more often the other way around, they try to employ fewer people to reduce expenditure and hence improve profits. If revenue goes up no company automatically increases workforce, workforce is only increased where a clear business case shows it makes sense and will increase profit. You're confusing cause and effect, profit is king (actually share price/stock market perception is for large corporations, profit is irrelevant to them).
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
BurlySurly said:
Its just more whining by the have-nots. CEOs deserve whatever raise they give themselves. The health of their companies rest on their shoulders.
If that were indeed the case many CEO's should take massive pay cuts, after all what happens to CEOs of failing companies? Golden parachute anyone?
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
llkoolkeg said:
Economically speaking, the market in which the position is located. A Federal minimum wage makes little sense. A retail worker in San Francisco requires considerably more to live than one in Tumbleturd, AL. A Federal Minimum Wage is nothing but a fabricated political bone over which to wrangle and use as a candidate differentiation tool in the absence of a real decision model.
I agree that the cost of living varies geographically but markets will simply not self-regulate for a minimum wage, if the government does not do it, it will not happen.

Perhaps it should be set as a percentage of the standard of living in any given area.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
LordOpie said:
so no one thinks this could be solved on the tax side? As opposed to raising min.wage?
I think tax breaks for the poor are an excellent idea, but they have to be earning enough in the first place to make the tax break worthwhile. Therefore have a minimum wage and tax breaks for the poor.

Means more tax for the rich though - cue frothers...
 

mykel

closer to Periwinkle
Apr 19, 2013
5,071
3,780
sw ontario canada
One of the biggest successes the "Elite" have - is to make the masses fight amongst themselves.
People bitch and complain about how this can not be afforded, but they fail to realize that they have been played, and it could easily be afforded; however it is easier and cheaper to get the sheep to fight amongst themselves while the wolves, unseen make off with the wool.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,855
9,560
AK
One of the biggest successes the "Elite" have - is to make the masses fight amongst themselves.
People bitch and complain about how this can not be afforded, but they fail to realize that they have been played, and it could easily be afforded; however it is easier and cheaper to get the sheep to fight amongst themselves while the wolves, unseen make off with the wool.
but

her

E-

Mails!
 

pnj

Turbo Monkey till the fat lady sings
Aug 14, 2002
4,696
40
seattle
$15.00 ain't much in Seattle. Maybe in podunk midwest it is but out here it ain't shit. People spend $7.00 on a cup of coffee out here.

I think they need to make $2.00 bills so strippers can get their come up. They still dance for a buck? a candy bar cost more than a buck...
 

mykel

closer to Periwinkle
Apr 19, 2013
5,071
3,780
sw ontario canada
Common belief is wrong on the two buck bill.
It is still produced and in circulation, albeit in very small numbers.
Quite a few of your population has no idea that it exists and is legal tender, and those that do, the majority won't touch it due to its tawdry prostitution tinged image. (Even though any bill that is in circulation was produced well after 2.00 would get you any sexual favor outside of the middle finger extended in your direction :rofl:)
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,855
9,560
AK
It's strange, I usually run into the $2 bills in the bible belt, the places that have the highest per-capita of strip clubs.
 

DaveW

Space Monkey
Jul 2, 2001
11,161
2,686
The bunker at parliament
Common belief is wrong on the two buck bill.
It is still produced and in circulation, albeit in very small numbers.
Quite a few of your population has no idea that it exists and is legal tender, and those that do, the majority won't touch it due to its tawdry prostitution tinged image. (Even though any bill that is in circulation was produced well after 2.00 would get you any sexual favor outside of the middle finger extended in your direction :rofl:)
This is why you need the colour coded notes like we have in NZ!
"honey I ain't doing nuthin lessin you show some red ones!.... or maybe a couple of purp's. Now don't be showing me green or blue or you just GTFO of this club!"
Also with Prostitution being legal in NZ for ages it's all fairly civilized and normative now.
 

mykel

closer to Periwinkle
Apr 19, 2013
5,071
3,780
sw ontario canada
This is why you need the colour coded notes like we have in NZ!
"honey I ain't doing nuthin lessin you show some red ones!.... or maybe a couple of purp's. Now don't be showing me green or blue or you just GTFO of this club!"
Also with Prostitution being legal in NZ for ages it's all fairly civilized and normative now.

Welcome to Canukistan, where we too have Monopoly money in all the fashionable colours!! :weee:

....but alas, they ruined it by going to that plastic for the bills. Now when they don't stick together, they slip apart so much that just folding a few bill to slip into your pocket becomes a highly intricate and technical exercise. :banghead: Please do not try this when intoxicated...:rofl:
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
40,942
13,135
Portland, OR
$15.00 ain't much in Seattle. Maybe in podunk midwest it is but out here it ain't shit. People spend $7.00 on a cup of coffee out here.

I think they need to make $2.00 bills so strippers can get their come up. They still dance for a buck? a candy bar cost more than a buck...
Casa Diablo (I would link it, but work. It's in Portland) is all $2 bills. :rofl:

And yes, $15 is jack squat in Seattle.