Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Arrow#422]

Maybe consider that playing an integral roll within the game could = the pursuit of happiness?

[Jim Naseum]

This is the perfect example which brings the whole thing back down to earth. This is life! It ain't fair. Ain't no politician gonna come to your rescue. Forget it. Either accept low pay, or play by the rules and find the ways which increase your pay. It's really that simple.

Such malarky! Honestly, Mr. Jeff, do you pay no attention at all to what happens in the halls of Congress?

Do you actually think CEOs and Billionaires "just accept what is and move on." No Sir, they do not. They connive and conspire and fanagle and bribe and pursuade from morning till night for favorable rule changes. The entirety of the US Congress is a begging station where the privileged go to receive new blessings from those who make rules.

I think your advice is not only wrong, but extremely condescending to those who have little influence and privilege. You've no doubt heard the expression, "Let them eat cake!"

24 hours a day, the privileged (who have gained power and access) are working full time to tilt the table to their corner, and they do, and they benefit wildly from doing it, but your advice to the less fortunate is just "suck it up, and accept your lot."

Mama mia, what a place!

Note: all in good humor.

I just call it like I see it. In my career, I've seen a few rich guys, a whole lot of climbers and a whole lot of people content not to be climbers. The latter complain just the way all humans complain. Humans are programmed by nature to complain that things aren't fair. It's what we do. We want to rig the game. All of us. The only difference is some actually do. If you want to be in that group, you have to seek it out. You have to really have a zest for that kind of lifestyle. It is doable; it's just not many people's "cup of tea." As I said, in my career, I saw lots of climbers. Hustling away. Trying to grow something big. Many fall on their faces. Some do well. But you know what about the ones who fell on their faces? They swung hard to the fence. Not everybody has the stomach to swing for the fence, and many who do are not going to hit homers all the time.

As I said, I call 'em like I see 'em. If you want to win, you gotta play. Or you can make your complaints known and wait for some politicians to come save you... Pick your poison.

Can you try on my hypothetical?

Hypothetical Change in Economy

20M low paid workers unite (somehow) and create a war chest of $500M for lobbying. They hire the 5 best lobbyists in government, and send them into the legislature to buy a better minimum wage law. They come out a year later with $25/hr. and future indexing. And the net effect is that the top 1/2 percent suffer a reduction of say, 10% of their typical income.

Q: When those 1/2% complain like mad, and scream about unfairness, would you say also, "Toughen up. Live with it!"

You are not getting it. If, indeed, they can do that, and if, indeed, that kind of leverage will really buy them the prosperity they are seeking, then, just like any other adventurous scheme, I say, "Go for it, and good luck to you!" I just am too pessimistic to believe the odds of getting 20 million people together to give $25 each to a common cause are higher than one guy trying his luck as an entrepreneur or joint venturer.

Good. You have no objection then to manipulating the government to get what you want.

Conclusion, we don't live in a meritocracy.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

I just call it like I see it. In my career, I've seen a few rich guys, a whole lot of climbers and a whole lot of people content not to be climbers. The latter complain just the way all humans complain. Humans are programmed by nature to complain that things aren't fair. It's what we do. We want to rig the game. All of us. The only difference is some actually do. If you want to be in that group, you have to seek it out. You have to really have a zest for that kind of lifestyle. It is doable; it's just not many people's "cup of tea." As I said, in my career, I saw lots of climbers. Hustling away. Trying to grow something big. Many fall on their faces. Some do well. But you know what about the ones who fell on their faces? They swung hard to the fence. Not everybody has the stomach to swing for the fence, and many who do are not going to hit homers all the time.

As I said, I call 'em like I see 'em. If you want to win, you gotta play. Or you can make your complaints known and wait for some politicians to come save you... Pick your poison.

Well put - playing the game, trying to find a niche position, rigging or solidifying that position, or simply swinging for the fences is at the very heart of attaining the ever sought American dream. Sitting back, waiting for a hand out, or waiting for Big Brother to distribute wealth and assistance to the less fortunate is the new expectation. Most likely because it's been ongoing for so long.

People wanting a raise in minimum wage are not asking for a handout, any more than a businesses asking for higher rates of electricity from the utility commission.

When CEO begs board members to give him some stock, is that also a handout?

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

 

I totally agree with your observation here.  The difference, however, is one of creating an entitlement by law.  Not by agreement.  

 

The point I am making is not that asking for more is bad.  The point I am making is that life is awfully short.  You can pursue your dreams or wait for them to come to you.  You can make your life better by changing the world or changing yourself.  You get to choose.  

 

If your goal is purely philanthropic, then, yes, by all means, seek the political change you describe.  That is certainly one way of philanthropy.  If, on the other hand, you feel cheated in your own circumstances (or underpaid, or unlucky, etc.), this feeling is not about philanthropy.  This is about you.  You can either try to change yourself, or you can try to change the world.  I think the latter is a much more difficult predicate for the effect of a simple pay raise.

[Nismo]

_{All the stats, graphs & restaurant talk makes me hungry.}

 

[Bella]

"When CEO begs board members to give him some stock, is that also a handout?"

 

begs?

 

Hah!

 

Negotiates.

 

A difference big enough to drive millions of striking minimum wage earners through.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Bella

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

 

This is the perfect example which brings the whole thing back down to earth. This is life! It ain't fair. Ain't no politician gonna come to your rescue. Forget it. Either accept low pay, or play by the rules and find the ways which increase your pay. It's really that simple.

Such malarky! Honestly, Mr. Jeff, do you pay no attention at all to what happens in the halls of Congress?

Do you actually think CEOs and Billionaires "just accept what is and move on." No Sir, they do not. They connive and conspire and fanagle and bribe and pursuade from morning till night for favorable rule changes. The entirety of the US Congress is a begging station where the privileged go to receive new blessings from those who make rules.

I think your advice is not only wrong, but extremely condescending to those who have little influence and privilege. You've no doubt heard the expression, "Let them eat cake!"

24 hours a day, the privileged (who have gained power and access) are working full time to tilt the table to their corner, and they do, and they benefit wildly from doing it, but your advice to the less fortunate is just "suck it up, and accept your lot."

Mama mia, what a place!

Note: all in good humor.

I just call it like I see it. In my career, I've seen a few rich guys, a whole lot of climbers and a whole lot of people content not to be climbers. The latter complain just the way all humans complain. Humans are programmed by nature to complain that things aren't fair. It's what we do. We want to rig the game. All of us. The only difference is some actually do. If you want to be in that group, you have to seek it out. You have to really have a zest for that kind of lifestyle. It is doable; it's just not many people's "cup of tea." As I said, in my career, I saw lots of climbers. Hustling away. Trying to grow something big. Many fall on their faces. Some do well. But you know what about the ones who fell on their faces? They swung hard to the fence. Not everybody has the stomach to swing for the fence, and many who do are not going to hit homers all the time.

As I said, I call 'em like I see 'em. If you want to win, you gotta play. Or you can make your complaints known and wait for some politicians to come save you... Pick your poison.

Can you try on my hypothetical?

Hypothetical Change in Economy

20M low paid workers unite (somehow) and create a war chest of $500M for lobbying. They hire the 5 best lobbyists in government, and send them into the legislature to buy a better minimum wage law. They come out a year later with $25/hr. and future indexing. And the net effect is that the top 1/2 percent suffer a reduction of say, 10% of their typical income.

Q: When those 1/2% complain like mad, and scream about unfairness, would you say also, "Toughen up. Live with it!"

You are not getting it. If, indeed, they can do that, and if, indeed, that kind of leverage will really buy them the prosperity they are seeking, then, just like any other adventurous scheme, I say, "Go for it, and good luck to you!" I just am too pessimistic to believe the odds of getting 20 million people together to give $25 each to a common cause are higher than one guy trying his luck as an entrepreneur or joint venturer.

Good. You have no objection then to manipulating the government to get what you want.

Conclusion, we don't live in a meritocracy.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

But we do have meritocracy.  You have to realize that some people have advantages.  This does not mean there is no meritocracy.  Some people have great physiques and make the NFL.  Not me.  "It ain't fair.  Boo hoo!"  That's life, man.  Embrace it.  That does not rule out the possibility I have some other form of talent and/or tenacity at my disposal.  I can tell you I am never going to make the cut to get into the NFL.  So?  Life does not end there.  I am never going to be a drummer like Neal Peart, although I play drums a bit.  Boo hoo!  He was born with drumsticks in his hands, I suppose.  He fell heir to all that knowledge and prowess in music and writing.  He did none of this through merit.  None.

 

I think you are having trouble appreciating how complex and non-black-and-white politics, economics and social interaction really is.

 

Finally, you have to realize that changing the rules is part and parcel of the meritocracy. Position yourself to change the rules.  Get your 20 million voters, or whatever.  Go for it.  If you can change the system, you have merit.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[oldtimer]

"When CEO begs board members to give him some stock, is that also a handout?"

 

begs?

 

Hah!

 

Negotiates.

 

A difference big enough to drive millions of striking minimum wage earners through.

Not beg, not even negotiate much of the time, considering the prevalence of ceos who are also chairmen of the board.  Of course, corporate governance is a wholly different topic, big enough, as you say....

[Jeff Matthews]

 

"When CEO begs board members to give him some stock, is that also a handout?"

 

begs?

 

Hah!

 

Negotiates.

 

A difference big enough to drive millions of striking minimum wage earners through.

Not beg, not even negotiate much of the time, considering the prevalence of ceos who are also chairmen of the board.  Of course, corporate governance is a wholly different topic, big enough, as you say....

 

 

True, but it works much the same.  Rig the game if you can, and watch a great many shareholders complain it ain't fair.

[Paducah Home Theater]

Can you try on my hypothetical?

 

Hypothetical Change in Economy

 

20M low paid workers unite (somehow) and create a war chest of $500M for lobbying. They hire the 5 best lobbyists in government, and send them into the legislature to buy a better minimum wage law. They come out a year later with $25/hr. and future indexing. And the net effect is that the top 1/2 percent suffer a reduction of say, 10% of their typical income. 

 

Q: When those 1/2% complain like mad, and scream about unfairness, would you say also, "Toughen up. Live with it!"

Not every company has a lot of minimum wage workers though, if any at all. You'd be taking money from officers at one company who pays their employees very well just to redistribute it to the workers of another company who are paid very little. It's straight up communism.

[Jim Naseum]

"When CEO begs board members to give him some stock, is that also a handout?"

 

begs?

 

Hah!

 

Negotiates.

 

A difference big enough to drive millions of striking minimum wage earners through.

 

And therein lies the difference between our positions. You see the poor as beggers (looking for handouts) and the rich as negotiators, whereas I see the world as competing interests of power. 

[Bella]

Where have I ever stated that I see the poor as beggars?

[Paducah Home Theater]

And therein lies the difference between our positions. You see the poor as beggers (looking for handouts) and the rich as negotiators, whereas I see the world as competing interests of power.

Not all poor are deserving people who are down on their luck, just like not all poor are undeserving leeches. Both sides err when they lump them all into one side or another.

And the problem with competing interests of power is that you are assuming everyone on the poor side of things is actually fighting and competing. I assure you that's not the case. That's what drives me crazy more than anything, so many of them won't fight for themselves.

[Jim Naseum]

 

Can you try on my hypothetical?

 

Hypothetical Change in Economy

 

20M low paid workers unite (somehow) and create a war chest of $500M for lobbying. They hire the 5 best lobbyists in government, and send them into the legislature to buy a better minimum wage law. They come out a year later with $25/hr. and future indexing. And the net effect is that the top 1/2 percent suffer a reduction of say, 10% of their typical income. 

 

Q: When those 1/2% complain like mad, and scream about unfairness, would you say also, "Toughen up. Live with it!"

Not every company has a lot of minimum wage workers though, if any at all. You'd be taking money from officers at one company who pays their employees very well just to redistribute it to the workers of another company who are paid very little. It's straight up communism.

 

 

There exists a FINITE TOTAL of new wealth created each year - call it $X. That total wealth is divided up among millions of interests. The way and methods of that division are numerous. The USG distributes about 1/3 of it through all its many ways of spending. The other 2/3 is distributed by private sector parties using many methods of determining the "share" that anyone gets. What do we know about how share is determined?

 

- It's not a formula

- It's not by merit

- It's not by fairness

- It's not by need

 

-It is by two main methods which are legislation and negotiation. Here's an example of legislation. All the banking interests hire a lobby group to get revisions to the laws of usury. So that, by legal fiat, they can charge 32% interest instead of 10% interest, and that change in law, which is begged for and paid for by bankers,  simply increases their share of the annual wealth pie by a substantial amount each year. It can be reduced to this: Money buys the legislation needed to make more money. 

 

Samples of negotiation are easier. There's a limited supply of men who can hit home runs off major league pitching, and there is a very big demand for them. They have leverage to negotiate high pay, and they do. A very typical supply and demand negotiation. It has nothing to do with ethics of the players. They might be nice, or they might be nasty. They might be pure and they might be grossly immoral. There's no good or bad involved, just supply and demand. There's no measure of fairness to be applied. A guy who can hit 30 home runs makes $20M and an emergency room Doctor who saves 30 lives a year gets paid $150,000. None of that matters. So far, I'm sure we agree. 

 

Now we come to low wage workers of all kinds. What do we know about them? First, they are in huge supply. More than there are jobs for them. Second, they have no particular leverage. They can't buy Congress and they can't say they are in short supply. So, they are just a group with the lowest possible leverage. Again, like the ballplayers, you can't judge their ethics in any way. They are simply a powerless group. 

 

So, they have a couple options to improve their lot. And as we know, everyone from bankers to CEOs to ballplayers and surgeons want to improve their lot. They can form up to create a unified structure like a union, or they can lobby for legislation in cities, states and federal for better laws. We have laws preventing certain kinds of child labor. We have laws about worker safety, we have laws about worker benefits, overtime and so on. We are a nation of laws. And the poor are no more inferior for invoking those laws than the rich. 

 

A minimum wage law is not a government handout. If it was, then you'd have to say the soldiers are also living on handouts. And the defense industry engineers are living on handouts, and the doctors working at the VA are living on handouts. 

 

All the millions of "interests" are wrangling for more pie.Most of the very successful one buy legislation for their cause. If the poor are un-virtuous for doing that, then so must be the rich.  

[Mallette]

Well, 25 pages and still wandering from the original post. 

 

Nobody has really addressed the basic question as to whether our society is better off with us directly supporting the below poverty line people by paying more food, clothes, manual and unskilled labor, etc or through the proven waste of doing it with tax money. 

 

Personally, I think it would be a worth experiment to determine as closely as possible what the minimum wage must be to make having a job worthwhile and providing a minimal healthy existence and simply raise it to that...then let prices follow.  Consumers will pay for a number one meal or even supersized if the price is the same everywhere even if it's gone up 20 percent.  Frankly, I'd don't think prices would go up that much but it might be worth it.  More taxes for defense, infrastructure and less for welfare, workfare, and related.  Taxes would remain stable and we'd get more for what we pay.

 

Nothing else seems to work, and the 25 pages of wandering here seem to prove that. 

 

Conceptually, LBJ's "Great Society" was a noble thought.  It was never carried out but even the "conservatives" of the day found merit in it. 

 

Maybe it's time to consider a better way to deal with poverty with a hand up instead of a handout.  I am retired now so my money is important to watch...but I am not adverse to helping others a bit and believe it comes back in the end.

 

Dave

Edited November 11, 2015 by Mallette

[oldtimer]

Not every company has a lot of minimum wage workers though, if any at all. You'd be taking money from officers at one company who pays their employees very well just to redistribute it to the workers of another company who are paid very little. It's straight up communism.

 

The point some here have made is that this is exactly what happens to every tax payer.  Some companies are being subsidized by the tax payer to pay their workers very little.  Other companies are not because of the nature of their businesses.

[Fjd]

 

Not every company has a lot of minimum wage workers though, if any at all. You'd be taking money from officers at one company who pays their employees very well just to redistribute it to the workers of another company who are paid very little. It's straight up communism.

 

The point some here have made is that this is exactly what happens to every tax payer.  Some companies are being subsidized by the tax payer to pay their workers very little.  Other companies are not because of the nature of their businesses.

 

 

 

 

Here is an article from a couple of years ago that touch upon the tax payer subsidy concept where the first sentence states "Taxpayers spend at least $7 billion annually to subsidize food stamps and other public assistance programs that fast-food industry workers depend on to get by, according to two new studies."

 

National Employment Law Project – "McDonald’s workers receive a total of $1.2 billion in public assistance benefits annually.  This is despite the fact that McDonald’s made $5.46 billion in profits in 2012."

 

http://fortune.com/2013/10/16/the-harsh-price-americans-pay-for-fast-food-jobs/

[Paducah Home Theater]

Personally, I think it would be a worth experiment to determine as closely as possible what the minimum wage must be to make having a job worthwhile and providing a minimal healthy existence and simply raise it to that...then let prices follow.

You just inserted yourself into a never ending cycle though.

Step 1: raise minimum wages.

step 2: let direct prices follow.

step 3: indirect prices follows that.

step 4: inflation just occurred at an accelerated rate

step 5: see step 1.

 

Frankly, I'd don't think prices would go up that much

This stuff adds up more than you'd think. Let's take this list and go with a lesser talked about company, like StarBucks:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-companies-with-the-most-low-wage-workers-2013-2

176,533 workers making $7.25 an hour. Let's assume 30 hours a week. Bumping up to $15, plus probably an extra $2 for payroll taxes: $2,685,066,930

Nearly $2.7 billion. Even with explosive growth in the last two years, I'm pretty sure that's way more than their profits for an entire year. It wouldn't be an insignificant increase if suddenly they have to eat this. We're talking about insane price increases everywhere and the fallout would just mean that we have to raise minimum wage again soon after.

The argument is that increased business due to increased disposable income among an increased number of people will boost business enough that businesses will actually profit from paying more but I don't believe it at least not on a widespread scale.

Edited November 11, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[CECAA850]

The argument is that increased business due to increased disposable income among an increased number of people will boost business enough that businesses will actually profit from paying more but I don't believe it.

 

Minimum wages go up giving more people more buying power.

 

Businesses now charge more for goods and services to compensate for increased cost of labor.

 

People who just got raises are now paying more for everything. 

 

We're back at square one.

[Fjd]

 

Personally, I think it would be a worth experiment to determine as closely as possible what the minimum wage must be to make having a job worthwhile and providing a minimal healthy existence and simply raise it to that...then let prices follow.

You just inserted yourself into a never ending cycle though.

Step 1: raise minimum wages.

step 2: let direct prices follow.

step 3: indirect prices follows that.

step 4: inflation just occurred at an accelerated rate

step 5: see step 1.

 

Frankly, I'd don't think prices would go up that much

This stuff adds up more than you'd think. Let's take this list and go with a lesser talked about company, like StarBucks:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-companies-with-the-most-low-wage-workers-2013-2

176,533 workers making $7.25 an hour. Let's assume 30 hours a week. Bumping up to $15, plus probably an extra $2 for payroll taxes: $2,685,066,930

Nearly $2.7 billion. Even with explosive growth in the last two years, I'm pretty sure that's way more than their profits for an entire year. It wouldn't be an insignificant increase if suddenly they have to eat this. We're talking about insane price increases everywhere and the fallout would just mean that we have to raise minimum wage again soon after.

The argument is that increased business due to increased disposable income among an increased number of people will boost business enough that businesses will actually profit from paying more but I don't believe it at least not on a widespread scale.

 

 

 

 

I'm not certain that these hospitality-types of business that provide convenience-type services where restaurants would be categorized really have a significant impact on inflation.  Yes the cost structure will change; however, most of the people that I know that live paycheck to paycheck do not partake in these types of convenience service businesses anyway, those that do will have to decide if the convenience is still worth the price and there will always be a percentage that can afford the prices and conclude the convenience is worth it.  It becomes finding that correct price / volume mix for maximum profitability. I remember as a child the budget only allowed for one restaurant visit each year; and that was usually McDonald's on 15 cent hamburger day.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Fjd

[Mallette]

step 3: indirect prices follows that.

 

Why does everyone believe this?  I don't see that it's your or my job to see to it that a family can afford to eat at McDonalds.  Prices for those jobs that are minimum wage are generally in things that we didn't buy when I was a kid in a low income family.  We got by just fine on staples whose prices still remain far lower than "fast food" and such.   

 

Minimum wage people, in general, affect the prices of things they can't afford.  Gasoline isn't going to be affected.  Electricity isn't going to be affected, not many poor people own rent properties so rent isn't going to be affected. 

 

However, I ask you:  Is there a better solution?  The days of just letting people die or live out a miserable existence are past as is slavery.  I don't think a society striving to become civilized can afford to simply ignore its under privileged.  Judging whether they are "worthy" of help or not is impossible.  Supporting them by huge, wasteful, and corrupt public programs simply costs billions and sweeps the problem under the rug. 

 

So the real question is to discontinue those programs and let'em rot since they don't work, or try something a bit more direct.  That's all I am saying.  Cut on the middle man.  The cost will be the same...no idea why you think raising the minimum wage would have a big impact on prices as WE ARE ALREADY PAYING IT...just through taxes.

 

Dave