[noname]

making the decisions and taking the risks is far different than flipping burgers or sweeping floors. People are generally paid by what the market thinks the job they do is worth. If you don't like what a CEO makes, make the effort to take over the job and give the money away. There will always be examples of CEOs doing poorly and still getting paid well, but they are in the minority. Also, just because a company slides doesn't mean the current CEO shouldn't be rewarded, if the company was forseeing a huge decline and had no idea how to effectively turn it around and along comes a man who is able to slow it down and put the company on the coarse to sovency again he deserves what the board decides to give him. Besides that, hating CEOs for what they make not only is rediculous but it will not affect anything. The market determines the value of services and tasks, if you don't feel like you make enough then demand more or go somewhere else or god forbid, seek out a new career.
As far as janitors and other menial laborors they tend to do fine for the work they are doing. Besides, if you were to set a wage where would it be and who would pay it? What happens to all the people who are essencially priced out of their jobs? What happens to the employers who can't afford to pay the required wages without increasing prices significantly. It's fun to sit online and demand that some pay someone else more money when you don't think it will affect you, makes you feel noble and morally superior. All you're really doing is showcasing you economic ignorance and advocating destructive policies that oddly enough are more of a hindrance to the poor than they are helpful.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

making the decisions and taking the risks is far different than flipping burgers or sweeping floors.

Never said it wasn't.

People are generally paid by what the market thinks the job they do is worth.

Not CEOs. They generally set their own pay.

If you don't like what a CEO makes, make the effort to take over the job and give the money away.

I'd be willing to be that most CEOs get to their positions because of networked connections, connections that I don't have, nor do I care about. That doesn't mean that I can't think it highly unfair that CEOs make 411 times what the average worker makes. Does that make sense?

There will always be examples of CEOs doing poorly and still getting paid well, but they are in the minority. Also, just because a company slides doesn't mean the current CEO shouldn't be rewarded, if the company was forseeing a huge decline and had no idea how to effectively turn it around and along comes a man who is able to slow it down and put the company on the coarse to sovency again he deserves what the board decides to give him.

One of the points of the links I posted was that a man came in as CEO and made the company less profitable. Share prices tumbled, yet he still got record pay, and record benefits after being forced out. If you are forced out of your job, are you going to get a golden parachute?

Another point was that many times CEOs get to set their own compensation and their own golden parachutes without input from the board of directors.

Besides that, hating CEOs for what they make not only is rediculous but it will not affect anything.

I don't hate CEOs. I hate the system where people feel entitled to the ridiculous sums of cash that they receive, regardless of how they do their work. You all want to bash poor people for being lazy and feeling entitled, but when it comes to rich people, you turn a blind eye?

The market determines the value of services and tasks, if you don't feel like you make enough then demand more or go somewhere else or god forbid, seek out a new career.

Ah, the free market BS where the market will control everything and we don't have to worry about it. Too bad the market isn't what is controlling their salaries, nor is it really solving anything. The market is allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and of their own companies. When they have to lay off people because they can't afford the $5m bonus that the CEO got, productivity goes down and they end up making even less, so they have to lay off more people to afford the $6m bonus that the CEO just gave himself for saving so much money in laying off the first batch of people.

As far as janitors and other menial laborors they tend to do fine for the work they are doing.

No, they don't always do fine, and that's the point of the living wage.

Besides, if you were to set a wage where would it be and who would pay it?

It would be set by the economic reality of the area. It means some places would pay more than others for the same work.

What happens to all the people who are essencially priced out of their jobs? What happens to the employers who can't afford to pay the required wages without increasing prices significantly.

Oh noes, the CEO may have to make 10% less in order to keep the company running. Oh the horrors that he will only make 300 times the average worker now.

It's fun to sit online and demand that some pay someone else more money when you don't think it will affect you, makes you feel noble and morally superior. All you're really doing is showcasing you economic ignorance and advocating destructive policies that oddly enough are more of a hindrance to the poor than they are helpful.

How is it a hinderance to ask for fair pay? How is it a hinderance to ask that people be paid enough to survive? Some smaller businesses might have trouble, that is true. Most of the larger companies would not, especially since the increases would be localized to the areas where the cost of living is higher and services already cost more to the consumer anyway.

Now, put down the Ayn Rand and realize that not everyone is born on an equal footing. Not everyone is capable of anything if they just work hard enough. Not everyone who is poor is lazy. Not everyone who is rich deserves it and/or works their ass off. Dealing is generalities like that doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[SkaredShtles]

And yet, we have tons of people that are homeless. Why don't you go tell them that. Why don't you also travel up to Flint, MI and tell the people that lost their auto industry jobs that.

People in Flint should move to Wyoming. There are $hitloads of oil/gasfield jobs out there from what I hear. And I would guess the cost of living in Bumf**ck, WY is pretty low.

 

[BurlyShirley]

People in Flint should move to Wyoming. There are $hitloads of oil/gasfield jobs out there from what I hear. And I would guess the cost of living in Bumf**ck, WY is pretty low.

Hey SS, OMGF has an excuse for everything. If only he could see that making excuses and validating laziness is actually the larger problem, he'd be on the right track.

 

[$tinkle]

i was pretty much done scanning this thread when you rebuked him with "you fully understand the problem but fail to acknowledge it"

 

[N8 v2.0]

My framing crew subs the decking of the roof out to a crew from southern Texas... it would cost my framer $2k in payroll if his guys did the work because it would take him 2 days to get the work done... the hispanic crew knocks out the work in 4 hrs for half the cost.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

People in Flint should move to Wyoming. There are $hitloads of oil/gasfield jobs out there from what I hear. And I would guess the cost of living in Bumf**ck, WY is pretty low.

I actually read an article about how WY is trying to woo Michiganders away from Michigan. If they can do it and make a better life, I'm all for it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Hey SS, OMGF has an excuse for everything. If only he could see that making excuses and validating laziness is actually the larger problem, he'd be on the right track.

What, just because I'm not willing to stereotype a whole lot of people? I'd rather "make excuses" than be a bigot like you.

 

[BurlyShirley]

What, just because I'm not willing to stereotype a whole lot of people? I'd rather "make excuses" than be a bigot like you.

Im not intolerant or hateful of these people, just unsympathetic for the vast majority of them.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Im not intolerant or hateful of these people, just unsympathetic for the vast majority of them.

You are a bigot. You have maligned all of them based on the prejudicial stereotypes that you carry that you've seen some of them meet. You're an elitist bigot, with no heart and no empathy.

 

[BurlyShirley]

You are a bigot. You have maligned all of them based on the prejudicial stereotypes that you carry that you've seen some of them meet. You're an elitist bigot, with no heart and no empathy.

I think you're bigoted toward people with no heart or empathy. We dont have feelings too.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I think you're bigoted toward people with no heart or empathy. We dont have feelings too.

Fine, make a joke about being called out on your BS. Maybe someday you will grow up and realize that your sh*t stinks just as bad as everyone else's.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Fine, make a joke about being called out on your BS. Maybe someday you will grow up and realize that your sh*t stinks just as bad as everyone else's.

Oooh, I got "called out" because I dont feel bad for people who CHOOSE to remain poor in a land with plenty of opporunity. Obviously, as I said, there are exceptions, but really, what's so hard about it? Your position has been handily smote by many in this thread so please, continue with your enabling. It's a joke.

 

[BurlyShirley]

...and BTW, do I "feel bad" for the poor in Africa, South America, many other economically depressed areas? You bet I do. In the US? Notsomuch.

EDIT: and by poor in the US, Im speaking only of able bodied types in your average US setting. Obviously there's going to be exceptions but I know if I dont specifically state this you'll start calling me Hitler or something.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Oooh, I got "called out" because I dont feel bad for people who CHOOSE to remain poor in a land with plenty of opporunity. Obviously, as I said, there are exceptions, but really, what's so hard about it? Your position has been handily smote by many in this thread so please, continue with your enabling. It's a joke.

And you follow up with more BS bigotry. It's rather sad.

And, no you never smote anything. You have never even answered the original question, why should someone who works in a menial task not be able to make a living wage? All you've done with that question is make bigotted assertions. If you weren't such a clown, it would be disgusting.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

...and BTW, do I "feel bad" for the poor in Africa, South America, many other economically depressed areas? You bet I do. In the US? Notsomuch.

EDIT: and by poor in the US, Im speaking only of able bodied types in your average US setting. Obviously there's going to be exceptions but I know if I dont specifically state this you'll start calling me Hitler or something.

Even if you feel badly for those poor people, it doesn't make you any less of a bigot. You are still acting in a prejudiced manner and maligning a whole swath of people simply because of your preconceived notions and your elitism.

And, with your "Hitler" remark, I note that it's close enough to a violation of Godwin's Law. This is so typical of you. When you can't answer the tough questions, you declare victory and then try to browbeat the other person into submission. You have not once defended your bigotted views on poor people, yet you claim to have won. You have not answered the questions posed to you or the objections to your bigotry, yet you claim you have won. It's all rather pathetic. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I may be wrong about some things I've said in this thread, but I'd rather be me than a hateful bigot like you.

 

[$tinkle]

What, just because I'm not willing to stereotype a whole lot of people?

you mean "this" group of people.

if you would have anyone here believe you're the first person to walk the earth & not stereotype, prepare to be disappointed. f'rinstance, i happen to loathe fat people, mostly because all the fat people i see are not in the hospices, but walking down the hall in my bldg, or in line at chipotle, or their wingfat is pouring over my armrest on the plane.

your inner bigot isn't always bad. it may help you to think about all of christianity to relate.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you mean "this" group of people.

if you would have anyone here believe you're the first person to walk the earth & not stereotype, prepare to be disappointed. f'rinstance, i happen to loathe fat people, mostly because all the fat people i see are not in the hospices, but walking down the hall in my bldg, or in line at chipotle, or their wingfat is pouring over my armrest on the plane.

your inner bigot isn't always bad. it may help you to think about all of christianity to relate.

Which group do you mean by "this"?

Everyone has stereotypes. But, do we act on them and make up sh*t about people, or do we try to move past them and see what other people are about? BS's approach (and the BS moniker is so incredibly apt) is to just run around thinking he's superior to all those who he stereotypes. My approach is to try not to do it, and if I am doing it and I'm called out on it, I try to understand why I do it and correct myself.

As to your Xtianity comment, are you trying to imply that I'm bigotted towards Xtians? I don't have a problem with Xtians. I have a problem with those who would try to enforce their beliefs on me. I have a problem with the belief itself, and with the "teachings" of that belief in that I think they are hurtful and destructive. I fully recognize that there are good and bad Xtians, just as there are good and bad people in just about every group you can come up with.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And you follow up with more BS bigotry. It's rather sad.

And, no you never smote anything. You have never even answered the original question, why should someone who works in a menial task not be able to make a living wage? All you've done with that question is make bigotted assertions. If you weren't such a clown, it would be disgusting.

I never said I smote a thing, I just said many. Reading is fundamental.
And you still havent defined what a "living wage" is either. Its an impossible question. If you work at McD's 40 hours a week every week, I think you could afford to eat and share a room with roommates in most places. That would be living, would it not? Food and shelter are all one really needs to live. Thus, it would be a living wage by at least one definition.
And Im a little saddened that its not disgusting, because I really do my best.

 

[BurlyShirley]

BS's approach (and the BS moniker is so incredibly apt) is to just run around thinking he's superior to all those who he stereotypes.

This is not so. If I for instance, stereotype all gods as "pretty damn powerful" that's not me thinking Im superior to them, its just a quick way to accurately describe a group of people/deities by my estimation. Has nothing to do with my personal evaluations of them as compared to myself necessarily.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And you still havent defined what a "living wage" is either.

The only reason I'm answering this is because there's an honest question in there. A living wage is defined by the cost of living and a pre-determined set of standards of living. I don't know what those standards are, and I'm fully willing to look at them and figure out where they should be.

Its an impossible question.

No, it's not impossible.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Blah blah blah, I've already violated Godwin's law and now I'm trying to dig myself out of my whole and excuse the fact that I'm an elitist bigot.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

For all of you that want to carp about how the poor people in this country feel entitled, perhaps you are directing it at the wrong people?

http://www.extremefunnypictures.com/funnypic1945.htm

 

[Toshi]

you still havent defined what a "living wage" is either. Its an impossible question. If you work at McD's 40 hours a week every week, I think you could afford to eat and share a room with roommates in most places. That would be living, would it not? Food and shelter are all one really needs to live. Thus, it would be a living wage by at least one definition.

 

[SkaredShtles]

The only reason I'm answering this is because there's an honest question in there. A living wage is defined by the cost of living and a pre-determined set of standards of living. I don't know what those standards are, and I'm fully willing to look at them and figure out where they should be.

No, it's not impossible.

From a national standpoint, it *is* impossible. From a state level it *might* be possible, but I doubt it. On a local level it would likely be feasible, but now we're probably facing a task that economically doesn't make much sense...

I say let the states take care of it.

 

[valve bouncer]

Saw this, thought it was pertinent to the conversation. If only the answer to poverty was as simple as "work harder".

WASHINGTON — The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found.

Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than $9,903 — one half the federal poverty line figure.

For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under $5,080 a year.

"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005," the U.S. newspaper chain reported.

"That's 56% faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted.

The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.

"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.

"That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

"These and other factors have helped push 43% of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty — the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades," the report said.

It quoted an American Journal of Preventive Medicine study as having found that since 2000, the number of severely poor — far below basic poverty terms — in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population."

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, a study co-author.

"We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

U.S. social programs are minimal compared to those of western Europe and Canada. The United States has a population of 301 million, but more than 45 million U.S. citizens have no health insurance.

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/400038

 

[BurlyShirley]

For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under $5,080 a year.

Funny that if you worked a full year, full time for minimum wage (which would never happen) you'd make twice that amount.

 

[fluff]

Saw this, thought it was pertinent to the conversation. If only the answer to poverty was as simple as "work harder".

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/400038

Nice try VB but this thread went beyond reasoned argument a long time ago.

 

[fluff]

Funny that if you worked a full year, full time for minimum wage (which would never happen) you'd make twice that amount.

So... they'd be rich? Or just less poor?

 

[valve bouncer]

Nice try VB but this thread went beyond reasoned argument a long time ago.

This is the part I found interesting

"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.

I don't think anyone denies that there are some lazy bastards out there but there could also be a fairer divvying up of the pie too.

 

[ohio]

Funny that if you worked a full year, full time for minimum wage (which would never happen) you'd make twice that amount.

So if you work two full time jobs at minimum wage, you would have just enough to live on as an individual at poverty level (not "deep poverty") and exactly zero time to look for a better paying job or take, say, night classes to improve your value.

Look, the reality is that some people are lazy and some people are unlucky and some people are just plain stupid. None of us know what the proportions are. However, if a minimum wage is NOT a living wage then each one of us is subsidizing corporate payrolls with our tax dollars, because anyone over 18 and on minimum wage needs public assistance to survive, let alone improving their situation. Now obviously someone of extraordinary dedication or talent can find a way to improve their situation regardless even from a low wage and poverty, but those people aren't the ones earning minimum wage to begin with.

 

[DRB]

Did someone define a living wage yet?

After thinking about it, I've never worked a minimum wage job. I worked as a bartender in college but with tips that was no where near minimum.

 

[Westy]

I worked from the age of 15 to 19 at minimum wage, actually I got a few raises so I went from something like$3.25 to $4.00/hour. Worst job ever, retail hell, I wouldn't do it for what I make now.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Just thought about it, and I've never worked a min. wage job. When I was 15, I started landscaping for 10/hour (1996-7). Went up steadily from there for 5 years...

I'm with Ohio on this one...

 

[$tinkle]

Look, the reality is that some people are lazy and some people are unlucky and some people are just plain stupid. None of us know what the proportions are.

i think we all know way too many lazy, stupid (sometimes both) people who are living rather comfortably, with no end in sight.

However, if a minimum wage is NOT a living wage then each one of us is subsidizing corporate payrolls with our tax dollars, because anyone over 18 and on minimum wage needs public assistance to survive, let alone improving their situation.

instead an arbitrary age, howsa bout status - like "head of household"? there should be an understanding like "you go out in the world to make your mint, and we'll put a safety net under you"

anything short of this, you may have a case.

 

[Toshi]

So if you work two full time jobs at minimum wage, you would have just enough to live on as an individual at poverty level (not "deep poverty") and exactly zero time to look for a better paying job or take, say, night classes to improve your value.

5.15 / hr * 80 hr / wk (2 jobs) * 52 wks /yr = $21.4k/yr. that's about twice as high as poverty level. BS's math was correct, but you lost a factor of 2 somewhere in there.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml


also, here's an interesting link for y'all

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

green are states with min. wage higher than the federal standard

 

[Old Man G Funk]

From a national standpoint, it *is* impossible. From a state level it *might* be possible, but I doubt it. On a local level it would likely be feasible, but now we're probably facing a task that economically doesn't make much sense...

I say let the states take care of it.

I have no problem with making it more of a local issue. I keep stressing that it will change with localities based on the cost of living for that area.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Did someone define a living wage yet?

After thinking about it, I've never worked a minimum wage job. I worked as a bartender in college but with tips that was no where near minimum.

A quick search on google for living wage pulls up quite a few hits for orgs that are doing just that.

 

[LordOpie]

It seems like increasing the minimum wage helps union people far more than those people who actually make minimum -- which is almost no one.

 

[SkaredShtles]

I have no problem with making it more of a local issue. I keep stressing that it will change with localities based on the cost of living for that area.

IMO that would encourage people to move out of areas that don't deal with it.

Which means California would get alot more poor people.