<< tcsenter, that was a pretty good diatribe, but it sort of sounded like you were sparring with your imaginary liberal playmate. >>
Thanks. I try.
<< I said nothing about "evil greedy" corporate officers. >>
I didn't mean to imply you did (but we do know a little about how Moonbeam perceives the evil greedy $20 million CEO).
<< What I said was that I don't understand why higher wages for employees is inflationary and higher pay for executives isn't. >>
You're talking about minimum wage mandates, correct? Wage mandates generally aren't inflationary as much as they are destructive to the number of lower-end positions. It's true, "living wage" mandates don't cause the price of bread to skyrocket, and here's why:
The company will lay-off or "phase-out" the number of positions that are commensurate with the increase in wages they are paying for the same labor. This doesn't happen instantly. It takes a couple years for the company to reassess just how much it can justify $10.00 wage mandate labor vs. $7.00 free market labor, then take appropriate measures to restructure their labor force needs so they're paying no more for the same labor than they can justify.
But, it ALWAYS comes out of the bottom-level employees, never the top-level, that you can be certain of, and you'll have to kill EVERY position in the company, from the lowest wage-earner to middle management, before it will start to come out of the top.
<< And if you can't buy a house for 5.77, but the guy with 20 million buys one where are our children going to sleep? >>
That's your problem. Become a CEO if you want to make his salary and live in his home, or pursue something that will pay a similar salary. Why would it be anyone's responsibility but YOURS to provide for your family?
<< Your notion the 5.77 is unimportant but 20 million is is just plain goofy. According doubtless to your own economic theory the 5.77 will immediately recirculate in the economy. >>
Sure it will circulate, the guy's $20 million goes into the bank, where its loaned to people who want to start businesses or build homes. The $5.77 in the hands of Joe Worker is spent on Burger King, which circulates down the toilet 12 hours later, much sooner if you're like me and can't tolerate fast food.
Maybe you didn't raise the issue, but I was speaking to the notion that lower employees are some how 'worse off' because of the bonuses of those greedy company execs. If you distribute 100% of that money to the hourly workers of a company, it will NOT amount to anything meaningful. It will amount to a few extra dollars a week, and NOBODY is being priced out of a home, a car, or prescription medications by a few dollars a week. They might be able to afford one extra Burger King meal per week, but that's it.
The last time we got a raise, it amounted to about $10 additional per week on 40 hours. Half the employees said cynical things like "Oh good, now I can afford to buy...McDonalds or something." That is EXACTLY how employees would respond if you took away the huge bonuses of the execs and distributed it among the workers. It would not make any meaningful contribution to their situation at all. Many probably would find it an insult.
<< My point was also about the sacrifice of the 5% which you didn't address and which, if I'm not mistakened in its anti-inflationary implication, is there precisely so that workers can't negociate higher wages as per your free contract idea. Wages are kept low enough so that 5% can't afford to work and anybody who wants more than that minimum risks exchanges places with the unimployed. Etc. etc. etc. >>
Ah, I think I understand what you're getting at, and you're wrong.
4% is for all practical purposes considered "no unemployment" because of the margin of error and the unpredictable fluidity with which people can enter or leave the workforce at any moment. They can become self-employed, get married, have kids, go back to school, enter the military, etc. at any time. They can enter or re-enter the labor force from being self-employed, getting married, having kids, leaving school, or military, etc. at any moment.
The 4% you speak of has nothing at all to do with any sort of sacrificial lamb. That 4% effectively means anyone who wants a full-time job can get one, unless they've managed to build a terrible work history or have criminal records (i.e. they are not fit for employing). Where did you get the absurd idea that the 4% unemployment 'benchmark' was part of some devious plot to prevent workers from negotiating higher wages? Nevermind, I think I've seen union propaganda spew nonsense like that, or maybe it was our resident conspiracy nut, ZAQ.
