You Won't Believe Obama's Response

[timsip]

What about this Idea, I will not say no one else has this idea but I have heard no one discussing it.

New National non-negotiable law.

No One employee (Or Owner) Can make more that 250 times the yearly salary of the lowest paid employee.

Its not perfect. But I think it's fair to say If you pay someone min wage (8.50 in IL) your (hourly) pay rate can only be $2125.00 Of course CEO's dont work hourly. So we can use a 40 Hr work week Times 52 weeks (min wage people dont get time off)

So Lowest paid (full Time worker)= 17,680
CEO makes no more than $4.42 Million

(Current MCD CEO made $13.8 Million total comp in 2013; his predecessor made $27.7)

?Horrible Idea?

Sorry for the long post, you all sparked a rant

Legislating compensation limits goes against every fiber of the economy. Effective changes do not happen through legislation; they happen through action by the parties involved.

----------

I have no idea about the person Harry Reid was talking about, but I don't have much sympathy for that woman either. If I was working the same job - minimum wage or not - for ten years, I will have had a raise, or I would have been looking for a different job. In fact, that's one of the reasons I quit my last job before becoming a broker. I had worked for the company for 12 years, consistently received "exceeds expectations" on my reviews, had trained my entire district on a new computer system, and was offered $4/week for my raise. If I had simply "met expectations", I would have gotten nothing. Meanwhile, the CEO who "did not meet expectations" on his annual review got a $7M bonus. So, I packed my things and found a better situation.

What!?!? You the individual made a change? You didn't need Congress to make the company shift money from the CEO down to you? Oh, the horrors!!!

 

[Norwayguy]

Good question. I do believe that minimum wage should be a living wage. Teenagers usually do not work full time. If they do, they absolutely deserve to make a living wage. If they just want some spending cash, they can work one or two shifts a week. A cashier at a grocery store should also get a living wage. A living wage doesn't mean that they are going to move up in the world, but it does give them an opportunity to improve themselves because they don't have to work two or three jobs in order to just make ends meet.

You do realize I can replace say 10 cashiers with 1 worker and 10 machines. The machines are a one time cost plus a small cost for electricity to run but the existing cashier machines also require electricity to run. So as a business owner I do not believe those jobs and skills are worth that "living" wage.

Just using a grocery store as an example and let's take even a low living wage of 12 grand a year for a 40 hour work week. Since most grocery stores are open longer than 8 hours a day for each cashier station I can probably replace 2 people for a savings of 24 grand per year. Now I still have to purchase the cashier station and I don't know how much they cost but we also have to figure that the existing stations have a cost as well so we really only need to add the cost of the scales to weigh the items that have been bagged and slightly different payment system to handle some limited cash transactions as long as these additional costs are less than 20 grand per machine (and that is generous) that's a savings of at least 4 grand per station say over 10 stations that 40 grand per year more than enough to staff 1 or 2 more highly skilled employees. But reality in the world of computing is the extra cost of the self serve machines is probably less than 5k more than the existing systems so a savings probably closer to 19k per machine or 190k for 10 machines.

 

[unic.consulting]

Let's extrapolate that a bit...shall we?

This is always...and I mean always...targeted at the "upper class" or the "wealthy" and the argument is framed so that the Upper-income Class should do more for the lower-income class.

I would love to see someone apply this principle to the lower-income class. i.e., they should "do unto others" and:

• Strive to earn more to decrease the upper-income's tax burden
• Provide services to people who are paying their unemployment as a "thank you" for helping them during a hard time

etc.

So lower-income people should "do unto others" by getting a job? Great. Except we're talking about the people that already have a job. So they should make life easier on the rich by getting a second job? Ok. Or are you saying that they shouldn't take minimum wage jobs and strive for higher paying jobs?

I do hold the lower-income to the same "do unto others" standard. It doesn't apply to money only.

i.e., we have a freedom inequality problem in America. What I mean by that is this: The unemployed and unmotivated 25 year old in my city has an incredible amount of freedom daily. He skateboards all day, every day. How does he eat? His mom gets foodstamps. He doesn't even try to work. Medical care? Free through OCare.

How is that freedom inequality? Well, compare that to the working class. They have freedom...but far less. It's freedom inequality, grossly in favor of the lazy.

I am middle class. If my 25 year old wanted me to support him, I would make him do his share around the house. I would expect the same from the parent in your example. That is a better example of "do unto others". The same freedom inequality applies to the rich compared to the working class too.

I'd argue that laziness is easier now than it ever has been in the past. Laziness used to incur pain - i.e., lack of food, shelter, health insurance, etc. If we remove all of the pain, what is there to motivate us to work hard?

I'm personally not motivated by pain. I am motivated by a strong work ethic and the desire to help others. Others are motivated differently.

What will motivate my skateboarding friend to work? Nothing. He doesn't need to...because I'm paying for his livelihood. The pain from laziness is gone.

This is freedom inequality, and if justice swung both ways, he would need to do something for the employed as a "thank you" for his welfare.

I think he should get a job too. In fact, based on your own states guidelines, he does have to work a certain number of hours to qualify for food stamps.

 

[Quotebroker]

Simple question, Unic.

What cause will raising the minimum wage have on unemployment figures?

 

[unic.consulting]

What rhetoric? If increasing a population segment's wage from $8 to $9, or $10 is reasonable, why is it not reasonable to raise the majority of the population's wage to $100?

It's not reasonable because there is a rate where it is not cost effective to hire people. I didn't say $10 or even $9 was cost effective or reasonable. My figures from before average out to about $7.65/hr. That is not unreasonable.

You said 'advanced degree, did you not? Your paper shows enrollments in 2 and 4 year colleges.


Your paper shows people going back to get nothing more than their BA/BS.

You're right. I did say advanced degrees. When I originally posted that paper, I thought it send post-graduate not post-secondary. So the people in the report are only worth about 50% more after graduating. My apologies.

Ahh, yes. How we report the splitting of hairs! From your article:



So either losing 2.5 million jobs or losing 2.5 million worker hours regardless of how you want to split it does nothing good for the economy. You don't get paid money to spend in our economy if you are losing 2.5 million worker hours, now are you?

But go ahead and continue championing Obamacare and it's wonderful effects on the economy.

The splitting of hairs is an American tradition. And dropping 2.5 million worker hours CAN improve the economy. With the extra hours, they can use that time to improve themselves and our society and still survive.

 

[Norwayguy]

So lower-income people should "do unto others" by getting a job? Great. Except we're talking about the people that already have a job. So they should make life easier on the rich by getting a second job? Ok. Or are you saying that they shouldn't take minimum wage jobs and strive for higher paying jobs?

So why are they working a minimum wage job. Why do they not have the skills to get a higher paying job. I have had only 1 job my first that paid minimum wage everything since then has been higher (before being and agent). I learned skills to make myself desirable to those employers.

 

[timsip]

It's not reasonable because there is a rate where it is not cost effective to hire people. I didn't say $10 or even $9 was cost effective or reasonable. My figures from before average out to about $7.65/hr. That is not unreasonable.

Why $7.65? $.15 is only about $300 more per year. What is the point of that?

You're right. I did say advanced degrees. When I originally posted that paper, I thought it send post-graduate not post-secondary. So the people in the report are only worth about 50% more after graduating. My apologies.

Ok. Let's pretend that everyone that is attending college does graduate with a four year degree. By then let's pretend unemployment reaches the low 6/high 5%. Now we have these millions of newly degreed professionals enter the workforce. Guess what? At least two issues. Once these millions start looking for work again, the unemployment rate goes back up. Let's just hope there are jobs out there for all of those new entrants into the workforce. You know, the 30 somethings, 40 somethings and 50 somethings with a new four year degree that before the recession were making 50-60K and now with a shiny new degree are expecting at least that. Problem is, we already have a HUGE pool of college graduates now looking for work. Guess who got the jobs that brought the unemployment rate down to 5.8% (in the near future)? Now we will have another influx of recent college grads with four year degrees looking for a job, but are largely unhireable because they have been out of the workforce for an extended period of time, are older than the current workforce and in turn demand higher wages. But that isn't the end of it. With all of today's young graduates filling the Bachelor degree positions and another influx (according to your link) of those in four year degrees, the bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. Are these 30-50 year olds really going to go get their Master's? Good luck. The economy is not as rosey as the media and administration would have you think; and it isn't going to be magically going to change with laws like these on the book.

The splitting of hairs is an American tradition. And dropping 2.5 million worker hours CAN improve the economy. With the extra hours, they can use that time to improve themselves and our society and still survive.

No you didn't! Did you really paraphrase your buddy Obama!?!? Now that people are not being productive for the economy and are working part time (now below 35 hours, not 40), they can better themselves by reading poems and doing yoga!?!?!

 

[Quotebroker]

So why are they working a minimum wage job. Why do they not have the skills to get a higher paying job. I have had only 1 job my first that paid minimum wage everything since then has been higher (before being and agent). I learned skills to make myself desirable to those employers.

Bingo. Increasing minimum wage does not increase the value of the minimum wage employee. Their value stays the same, and some percentage of them will be fired and replaced with either more hours from the owner or have their responsibilities split up amongst the other workers. It is not the job of private industry to subsidize the poor. Some might argue it isn't the government's job either, but I'd like to think at the least we can agree it should not fall on private industry.

Instead, let's work toward giving these minimum wage workers the tools to be more valuable and not stay in a minimum wage job while trying to raise a family.

 

[timsip]

So why are they working a minimum wage job. Why do they not have the skills to get a higher paying job. I have had only 1 job my first that paid minimum wage everything since then has been higher (before being and agent). I learned skills to make myself desirable to those employers.

You bastard! You actually improved yourself to increase your income!?!? How dare you! Improving your income is the government's job!!!

----------

Bingo. Increasing minimum wage does not increase the value of the minimum wage employee. Their value stays the same, and some percentage of them will be fired and replaced with either more hours from the owner or have their responsibilities split up amongst the other workers. It is not the job of private industry to subsidize the poor. Some might argue it isn't the government's job either, but I'd like to think at the least we can agree it should not fall on private industry.

Instead, let's work toward giving these minimum wage workers the tools to be more valuable and not stay in a minimum wage job while trying to raise a family.

No matter how insensitive it is to say, but as long as there is some measure of wealth or value, there will be low value, middle value and high value members of the society. You can not legislate this away. It may suck, but regardless of how much some people want to change human society, there will be poor people that can't find a place to live because they can't contribute to the economy and earn compensation. For those that want to make sure there are no people living under a bridge, put your money where your mouth is, open your door; or hire them.

 

[wehotex]

Honestly, it depends on where you live. Here in MA, a cheap 1-bedroom runs about $1k/month. Add in utilities and food and you're probably looking at around $18-20k/year. In Tucson, the average is $625/month. So $12k should be enough. A state-specific minimum wage would be great, but if the feds have to get involved, maybe deal with a national average at $16-18k?

Why stop there? Why not have different income tax tables for those workers in high COL states to account for different earnings than in low COL states?