The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
#4962
The ACA is the perfect example for the minimum wage. Companies can't afford it so they're cutting back on hours for their employees, or not hiring so they stay under the threshold.
Minimum wages will cause the same thing.
And if Obama really wants all Americans to earn a "living wage", why does he want to grant amnesty to 15-20 million illegal aliens, or create programs that cause more people to flood the border illegally?
#4963
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
CHARTS!
lets look at the same data presented differently:
yup: "little connection between the two."
also, just look up how many % of the workforce is paid min. wage, then stop caring at all. Min Wage debates only come up when someone wants to look like he's the champion of the 1%. the 1% of the workforce that gets paid min wage that is.
lets look at the same data presented differently:
yup: "little connection between the two."
also, just look up how many % of the workforce is paid min. wage, then stop caring at all. Min Wage debates only come up when someone wants to look like he's the champion of the 1%. the 1% of the workforce that gets paid min wage that is.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
#4965
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
The massive increase in unemployment was the direct result of the financial crisis. So even if the data does show a statistically significant correlation (ignoring the fact that the data spans only 10 years), that would mean that you are saying that raising minimum wage caused the global financial crisis. That is obviously not the case.
The simple fact is that if minimum wage was indexed to inflation it would easily be around 10 bucks right now. We are in a state of dramatic income disparity, the highest of any developed country by leaps and bounds.
People are only going to be paid what they are worth. If a $10/hour minimum wage in the fast food industry means that they have to raise the prices too high to be competitive, then they will figure out a way to automate the process and hire less people. There is nothing wrong with that for anybody, including for the people that are being displaced by the higher wages and automation. They would be upset initially but in the long run everybody is better off.
The simple fact is that if minimum wage was indexed to inflation it would easily be around 10 bucks right now. We are in a state of dramatic income disparity, the highest of any developed country by leaps and bounds.
People are only going to be paid what they are worth. If a $10/hour minimum wage in the fast food industry means that they have to raise the prices too high to be competitive, then they will figure out a way to automate the process and hire less people. There is nothing wrong with that for anybody, including for the people that are being displaced by the higher wages and automation. They would be upset initially but in the long run everybody is better off.
#4966
The massive increase in unemployment was the direct result of the financial crisis. So even if the data does show a statistically significant correlation (ignoring the fact that the data spans only 10 years), that would mean that you are saying that raising minimum wage caused the global financial crisis. That is obviously not the case.
The simple fact is that if minimum wage was indexed to inflation it would easily be around 10 bucks right now. We are in a state of dramatic income disparity, the highest of any developed country by leaps and bounds.
People are only going to be paid what they are worth. If a $10/hour minimum wage in the fast food industry means that they have to raise the prices too high to be competitive, then they will figure out a way to automate the process and hire less people. There is nothing wrong with that for anybody, including for the people that are being displaced by the higher wages and automation. They would be upset initially but in the long run everybody is better off.
The simple fact is that if minimum wage was indexed to inflation it would easily be around 10 bucks right now. We are in a state of dramatic income disparity, the highest of any developed country by leaps and bounds.
People are only going to be paid what they are worth. If a $10/hour minimum wage in the fast food industry means that they have to raise the prices too high to be competitive, then they will figure out a way to automate the process and hire less people. There is nothing wrong with that for anybody, including for the people that are being displaced by the higher wages and automation. They would be upset initially but in the long run everybody is better off.
I personally think it's a layer of stupid laws like an outrageous minimum wage and the "ACA" that are crippling our economy. There are fewer and fewer people and companies driving this economy; over 92 million working-age people are sitting on the sidelines. That can't last, and a minimum wage certainly won't add people to the employment rolls.
#4967
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
The disparity has been steadily growing for the past 20 years, prior to that we were at similar levels of other developed countries. This is the direct result of reckless deregulation that started in the 80s and continues to this day. Im not sure that it has really changed much in the past few years.
With deregulation and strategically placed loopholes, the financial market exploded. Lots and lots of people have gotten rich without producing anything, no products, no services. Its just money made out of other money by pushing the limits of the system to the breaking point.
That is what happened in 07. All these big corporations in the financial industry were operating with absurdly high leverage to the point where the tiniest loss of profits put them into bankruptcy. They had been given incentive to act without any consideration for long term sustainability.
Say what you will about Obama's keneysian policies, but the crash had absolutely nothing to do with him. As for the recovery, this was a worldwide economic clusterfuck the likes of which we have never seen. There isnt anything to compare it to.
With deregulation and strategically placed loopholes, the financial market exploded. Lots and lots of people have gotten rich without producing anything, no products, no services. Its just money made out of other money by pushing the limits of the system to the breaking point.
That is what happened in 07. All these big corporations in the financial industry were operating with absurdly high leverage to the point where the tiniest loss of profits put them into bankruptcy. They had been given incentive to act without any consideration for long term sustainability.
Say what you will about Obama's keneysian policies, but the crash had absolutely nothing to do with him. As for the recovery, this was a worldwide economic clusterfuck the likes of which we have never seen. There isnt anything to compare it to.
#4968
The disparity has been steadily growing for the past 20 years, prior to that we were at similar levels of other developed countries. This is the direct result of reckless deregulation that started in the 80s and continues to this day. Im not sure that it has really changed much in the past few years.
With deregulation and strategically placed loopholes, the financial market exploded. Lots and lots of people have gotten rich without producing anything, no products, no services. Its just money made out of other money by pushing the limits of the system to the breaking point.
That is what happened in 07. All these big corporations in the financial industry were operating with absurdly high leverage to the point where the tiniest loss of profits put them into bankruptcy. They had been given incentive to act without any consideration for long term sustainability.
Say what you will about Obama's keneysian policies, but the crash had absolutely nothing to do with him. As for the recovery, this was a worldwide economic clusterfuck the likes of which we have never seen. There isnt anything to compare it to.
With deregulation and strategically placed loopholes, the financial market exploded. Lots and lots of people have gotten rich without producing anything, no products, no services. Its just money made out of other money by pushing the limits of the system to the breaking point.
That is what happened in 07. All these big corporations in the financial industry were operating with absurdly high leverage to the point where the tiniest loss of profits put them into bankruptcy. They had been given incentive to act without any consideration for long term sustainability.
Say what you will about Obama's keneysian policies, but the crash had absolutely nothing to do with him. As for the recovery, this was a worldwide economic clusterfuck the likes of which we have never seen. There isnt anything to compare it to.
#4969
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
More people get paid LESS than the min. wage, legally, than actually get paid the min. wage.
Why are we even talking about it? Because you really care about the 1-2% of the american workforce who took a job in an unskilled position, and are SO bad at their work (or so pointless of a job [e.g. sign twirlers]) they couldn't make above the pay level, and put themselves through college and make something better of themselves? true champions of humanity.
plus almost half the states has their own min wage set higher than the fed. min, and it's something that really does fall under the 10th; and the laws that established it were under the New Deal, and upheld under the same liberal, unamerican, agenda.
Why are we even talking about it? Because you really care about the 1-2% of the american workforce who took a job in an unskilled position, and are SO bad at their work (or so pointless of a job [e.g. sign twirlers]) they couldn't make above the pay level, and put themselves through college and make something better of themselves? true champions of humanity.
plus almost half the states has their own min wage set higher than the fed. min, and it's something that really does fall under the 10th; and the laws that established it were under the New Deal, and upheld under the same liberal, unamerican, agenda.
Last edited by Braineack; 01-30-2014 at 07:30 AM.
#4970
I'm not going to argue to the ACA, the dramatic need for tax reform, or even the minimum wage. My big thing is the growing pay inequality between the middle class and the executive/CEO level.
Middle-class wages have been in stagnation vs inflation for approaching 3 decades, and nearly all new wealth generated is being funneled to the top (it hasn't been this skewed since 1916).
Avg middle-class folks year after year get to see things like a raise that doesn't even cover the increased cost of healthcare, bonuses lowered or not given even though companies remain profitable.
"Well just change jobs then?"
This has been the case at 3 of the 4 companies I've worked for, including the present. Unlike the guys on the floor, I get enough other perks to stick around.
Middle-class wages have been in stagnation vs inflation for approaching 3 decades, and nearly all new wealth generated is being funneled to the top (it hasn't been this skewed since 1916).
Avg middle-class folks year after year get to see things like a raise that doesn't even cover the increased cost of healthcare, bonuses lowered or not given even though companies remain profitable.
"Well just change jobs then?"
This has been the case at 3 of the 4 companies I've worked for, including the present. Unlike the guys on the floor, I get enough other perks to stick around.
#4972
Oh wait, you've already admitted you don't care to actually discuss stuff online and prefer to just troll and not be serious.
Carry on.
#4973
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
I like how you ignored the rest of the post to come up with some off-base assumption. How does another company paying their own employees more instead of funneling it up to the top get me more money?
Oh wait, you've already admitted you don't care to actually discuss stuff online and prefer to just troll and not be serious.
Carry on.
Oh wait, you've already admitted you don't care to actually discuss stuff online and prefer to just troll and not be serious.
Carry on.
My last job gave me a raise that didn't cover the new payroll taxes and I was actually making less money each month, so I got a new one that was a 33% percent increase in total pay after taxes.
but noes, roughly 300,000 americans are making money out of proportion to me... they are hoarding all the money so my share is smaller!
except, everyone's share, today, is larger... it's like money isn't finite.
How does another company paying their own employees more instead of funneling it up to the top get me more money?
Edit, you almost tricked me there!!!!
however, if you're getting rich because of having your hands in the pockets of those in power (green energy loans, bailouts vs. providing value), then I say to you: it’s not that some group is getting an unfair slice of the pizza, it’s that the the oven is broke. The poor should not subsidize the rich.
and a quote for good measure:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
but so long as the gap is smaller, you'd rather have the poor poorer? because I'll tell you want, I'd rather be poor today than anytime in history since 1916...
Last edited by Braineack; 01-30-2014 at 10:48 AM.
#4974
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Or, said another way, he might be suggesting that there is probably NOT a good justification for most CEOs making 200-some-odd times as much as the average employee in the same firm. Should the C-level folks make a lot more than the line guys and gals or cubicle prairie dogs? Probably. But maybe a spread that extreme is not a good thing.
(1) "More evenly" is not the same as "equally"
Last edited by Scrappy Jack; 01-30-2014 at 10:50 AM. Reason: Forgot my footnote
#4975
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
I think a better way to think about is that he is saying, of the "pie" that is any single company's payroll expense, it should be more evenly(1) distributed among the workers versus being extremely concentrated among the C-level executives.
Or, said another way, he might be suggesting that there is probably NOT a good justification for most CEOs making 200-some-odd times as much as the average employee in the same firm. Should the C-level folks make a lot more than the line guys and gals or cubicle prairie dogs? Probably. But maybe a spread that extreme is not a good thing.
Or, said another way, he might be suggesting that there is probably NOT a good justification for most CEOs making 200-some-odd times as much as the average employee in the same firm. Should the C-level folks make a lot more than the line guys and gals or cubicle prairie dogs? Probably. But maybe a spread that extreme is not a good thing.
If you want to be rewarded for teh success of your company, buy shares in it. Else work for a private company that engages in profit sharing, else it doesn't make sense for any company to pay its employees a greater rate as it does better, just because it does better when it could hire others to do the same work for substantially less.
Executives didn't just go to work and suddenly became head honcos; they worked HARD to get where they are and are now rewarded more than handsomely. But if I wanted to get a job where I got rewarded monetarily for the amount of effort I put in I'd have become a janitor, not sit in a cube counting the minutes pass by. But to think that you can just work 9-5 each day and that you should suddenly reap in the rewards of something you have no stake in is an odd sentiment, imho.
Last edited by Braineack; 01-30-2014 at 11:05 AM.
#4976
Hmmm, I didn't realize I have no stake in the company I work for.
#4977
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
do what the hackers do, show them their valuerbilities by purposefully creating fault, then hope they pay you more because they are forced to see your worth?
whoops! all these people wouldn't be dead if you paid me my worth!
whoops! all these people wouldn't be dead if you paid me my worth!
#4978
Considering I'm directly responsible for Usage Instructions, Installation and Calibration Instructions for a $15x,xxx,xxx manufacturing facility..........and poor instructions/direction could LITERALLY mean MILLIONS in liability lawsuits if someone gets hurt or killed because I make a mistake.......
Hmmm, I didn't realize I have no stake in the company I work for.
Hmmm, I didn't realize I have no stake in the company I work for.
#4979
is there a good justification for getting paid well above the average for your patricular job just because the company you work for happens to profit well? shareholders and investors may not like that...
If you want to be rewarded for teh success of your company, buy shares in it. Else work for a private company that engages in profit sharing, else it doesn't make sense for any company to pay its employees a greater rate as it does better, just because it does better when it could hire others to do the same work for substantially less.
Executives didn't just go to work and suddenly became head honcos; they worked HARD to get where they are and are now rewarded more than handsomely. But if I wanted to get a job where I got rewarded monetarily for the amount of effort I put in I'd have become a janitor, not sit in a cube counting the minutes pass by. But to think that you can just work 9-5 each day and that you should suddenly reap in the rewards of something you have no stake in is an odd sentiment, imho.
If you want to be rewarded for teh success of your company, buy shares in it. Else work for a private company that engages in profit sharing, else it doesn't make sense for any company to pay its employees a greater rate as it does better, just because it does better when it could hire others to do the same work for substantially less.
Executives didn't just go to work and suddenly became head honcos; they worked HARD to get where they are and are now rewarded more than handsomely. But if I wanted to get a job where I got rewarded monetarily for the amount of effort I put in I'd have become a janitor, not sit in a cube counting the minutes pass by. But to think that you can just work 9-5 each day and that you should suddenly reap in the rewards of something you have no stake in is an odd sentiment, imho.
The dirty little secret about "income inequality" is that most of the one percenters only spend a few years at the top. After years of HARD work the top salesman becomes the sales manager maybe for 5-6 years. The lawyer becomes a partner, Joe the Plumber grows his business to 10 trucks. The "big money" comes in for 5-6-10 years and then they retire, or business goes South.
Democrats and Socialists have made a living out of demonizing those who have worked hard and now are reaping the rewards. Now the "prize" for that success is to pay over half of your income back to the government. Apparently for some that's not enough.