Is it time to replace slave (minimum) wage with human wages?

[BoberFett]

Because the CEO and big executives could stand to cut their outrageous wages. It is exploitation, what they are doing. Yes, the CEO of Walmart is engaging in massive exploitation of those most vulnerable, so he can have things he doesn't deserve.

Wealthy executives at large corporations are overcompensated, sometimes disgustingly so. But if you split their billions among everyone in the country, people wouldn't even notice the change in their weekly paycheck.

 

[Smoblikat]

So many people are forced to work for what amounts to slave wages, or simply be a slave to welfare. These chains of poverty often cross multiple generations, something needs to be done.

Raising the minimum wage from slave type wage, to human wages, wages fit for a human, will go along way to break this chain. People will earn more money, with the extra money they will buy more goods. They will elevate themselves and their family. Most importantly they will finally be treated like human beings. Business owners will also see a boost in revenue from this extra money being spent. So it will be a boon for all.

Is it time we finally move beyond slave wages, and onto human wages?

Everyone makes more -> more money floating around, value decreases -> things cost more due to the decreased buying power -> back to square 1

 

[ivwshane]

You see there exists these little things, some of which are mandated by the .gov, which increase the cost of labor and that increase is often a percentage of said labor. In the construction industry workers comp, liability and other insurances (sometimes referred to as labor burden) are a huge portion of that and are always a percentage of what the employee is paid.

I am assuming of course that you are not advocating removing the requirements for things like liability insurance, right?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/burden-rate.asp

If you need more help understanding the concept the above might be useful.

So again, the actual costs to the company will be greater than the additional wages paid to the employees. Thus it is possible that prices go up more than the wages did but even if they don't and prices increase exactly the same as wages, no one has been helped whatsoever since they still have the exact same purchasing power. The math isn't really that hard but if you need further assistance I would be happy to oblige.

Lol! Your proof of your claim is a link to a definition? Are you fucking retarded? Using your logic I can indeed prove you are retarded:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/retarded

Nice find, but do I get to use the conclussions in this paper from 1986 too? How about:



So, per the CBO study that you cited, this is a relatively non-issue as most people who make minimum wage don't even work year round, probably seasonal jobs and kids working summer jobs. The actual working poor that makes minimum wage and works year round is statistically so small as to be rather irrelevant.

Come on, this is a friggen 30 year old study. Don't you have something more relevant than that? I would love to see how anyone could come to the conclusion that raising a companies primary cost by a substantial amount does not lead to higher prices.

The study was also updated in 2007, perhaps you could provide proof of your own claim. I doubt it though.

 

[ivwshane]

I see that failing economics/business management 101 is possible.

lol ivwshane owned.

You are just another fucking moron who thinks common sense equals fact (hint; it doesn't).

Thanks for another great contribution to society! /s

 

[Matt1970]

Are you fucking retarded? Using your logic I can indeed prove you are retarded:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/retarded

You are just another fucking moron who thinks common sense equals fact (hint; it doesn't).

Well, it seems all you have now are insults. At least now we have someone to fill the Phokus void.

 

[palehorse]

Because the CEO and big executives could stand to cut their outrageous wages. It is exploitation, what they are doing. Yes, the CEO of Walmart is engaging in massive exploitation of those most vulnerable, so he can have things he doesn't deserve.

Why doesn't he "deserve" them?

Your jealousy and hatred are going to eat you alive, and they're also going to prevent you from ever accomplishing anything worthwhile.

I pity you.

Besides CO2, what have you built or contributed to society?

 

[ivwshane]

Well, it seems all you have now are insults. At least now we have someone to fill the Phokus void.

As opposed to the wealth of knowledge in the posts I replied to? Ok.

 

[ivwshane]

Why doesn't he "deserve" them?

Your jealousy and hatred are going to eat you alive, and they're also going to prevent you from ever accomplishing anything worthwhile.

I pity you.

Besides CO2, what have you built or contributed to society?

Comments like these remind me of racist accusations where someone is told that they have their beliefs because of deeply rooted racism and the accused responds, "oh there you go again, always pulling the race card.", except in this case it's not the race card but the jealousy card. I wonder who is right?

Either one is a racist and the other is just jealous of rich people or they are both throwing their respective cards around.


I just thought that was interesting.

 

[Agent11]

Rather than increasing the minimum wage I think the answer is a good bit more complicated.

We need to comb through our tax code and trade policy as well as take a look at regulations and legislation that impact every aspect of the economy.

I won't hold my breath, this congress and senate is incorrigible.

 

[ivwshane]

Rather than increasing the minimum wage I think the answer is a good bit more complicated.

We need to comb through our tax code and trade policy as well as take a look at regulations and legislation that impact every aspect of the economy.

I won't hold my breath, this congress and senate is incorrigible.

I agree on all accounts but a raise in minimum wage is an easy band aide.

 

[palehorse]

I agree on all accounts but a raise in minimum wage is an easy band aide.

...that would do more harm than good.

Again, what financial impact do you believe such increases would have on companies and consumers?

If you still say "none," or "nothing bad," then we know you're just an ideological fool.

 

[Matt1970]

Rather than increasing the minimum wage I think the answer is a good bit more complicated.

We need to comb through our tax code and trade policy as well as take a look at regulations and legislation that impact every aspect of the economy.

I won't hold my breath, this congress and senate is incorrigible.

It's not the fault of our tax code or trade policy that people are deciding to spit out 4 kids before they get skills beyond the ability to flip a burger.

 

[Darwin333]

The cost of goods is something like

Raw Materials + Capital + Labor.

Increasing minimum wage only increases one of those costs. It should be easy to see that increasing minimum wage is a net gain for those making minimum wage.

How exactly is it so easy when you don't know the percentage of the total cost of each of those items? If labor is 75% of that total cost, even though its only 1/3 of the factors, it would be a huge cost increase. Then you have the entire issue of supply chains to get the raw materials, a lot of which is labor intensive as well.

 

[Darwin333]

Lol! Your proof of your claim is a link to a definition? Are you fucking retarded? Using your logic I can indeed prove you are retarded:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/retarded

Not many companies post that sort of confidential information on the web but perhaps you could call one of them and see if they will willingly give it to you? I dunno, allowing competitors to know a major component of their cost of doing business should be rather easy right?

How about .gov construction contracts which generally limit and define labor burden as a percentage? Regardless, you can hold on to your ignorant belief all you wish, I did this for a living and know very well what I am talking about.

The study was also updated in 2007, perhaps you could provide proof of your own claim. I doubt it though.

How about the state of Texas DOT?

When markups are used by the contractor to develop unit prices, use of a markup for labor burden is permissible. When considering compensation for new items of work, labor burden can be negotiated, up to 55 percent, at the discretion of the change order signature authority

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/tips/CST_TIPS_07_4QTR_LaborBurden.pdf

I wonder why umm EVERY government entity in the US, including the Feds, would allow you to calculate the labor burden you charge them on change orders as a percentage if its just a static cost? Feel free to google your own government and "labor burden" for further proof. I have provided more than enough for you to become more educated on the subject, as I said before if you wish to remain ignorant that is of course your own prerogative.

BTW, the absolute biggest reason that labor burden is impossible to calculate a static number for are the various insurances that companies must (and should imo) carry on their employers. Perhaps you should advocate that this no longer be required and then maybe you can get closer (but not quite) to being right.

 

[Darwin333]

Everyone makes more -> more money floating around, value decreases -> things cost more due to the decreased buying power -> back to square 1

You forgot "things cost more because labor costs go up"

 

[Darwin333]

Because the CEO and big executives could stand to cut their outrageous wages. It is exploitation, what they are doing. Yes, the CEO of Walmart is engaging in massive exploitation of those most vulnerable, so he can have things he doesn't deserve.

What in the hell makes you think he is going to make LESS if the cost of labor goes up for the entire nation? Frankly, I bet their profit margins stay exactly the same which means in real dollars he will be making more money and still be able to buy whatever he wants with the money he does in fact deserve.

 

[DCal430]

What in the hell makes you think he is going to make LESS if the cost of labor goes up for the entire nation? Frankly, I bet their profit margins stay exactly the same which means in real dollars he will be making more money and still be able to buy whatever he wants with the money he does in fact deserve.

Then we need a 75% tax on wages/earning/income over 500,000 a year, and a 90% tax on amounts over 1 million.

 

[Darwin333]

Then we need a 75% tax on wages/earning/income over 500,000 a year, and a 90% tax on amounts over 1 million.

Lol, good luck with that.

You aren't trying to help the poor you are trying to punish the successful. At least we have gotten to the crux of your post/point.

Edit: PS: You do realize that with state and local taxes it would actually cost people money to make over a million dollars. I am sure you think that would be a great idea too. If you get your way you better hope that if need any major surgery that you need it in January.

 

[palehorse]

Then we need a 75% tax on wages/earning/income over 500,000 a year, and a 90% tax on amounts over 1 million.

And you NEED to stop doing drugs... 75-90%?! Seriously, are you high? Or just straight-up stupid?

My guess is both.

Jealousy and hate are so unbecoming...

 

[DCal430]

And you NEED to stop doing drugs...75-90%?! Seriously, are you high? Or just straight-up stupid?

My guess is both.

Jealousy and hate are so unbecoming...

How is it right that we have homeless children dying from exposure and starvation in ditches, while someone else has billions, and is living in disgusting excess. How is it right at all.

 

[BoberFett]

Follow the supply chain all the way back, and you'll find that labor is 100% of the cost of everything. Whether you're growing corn, chopping lumber, or mining coal, the cost of anything you take from the ground is zero. None of those things have any value. Labor adds value.

Increase the cost of labor, the cost of everything goes up. There's no way to avoid that simple fact of economics.

 

[BoberFett]

How is it right that we have homeless children dying from exposure and starvation in ditches, while someone else has billions, and is living in disgusting excess. How is it right at all.

Aren't you the moron who thought that millions of people starved to death in the US every year?

Are you stupid?

Edit: Yep, that was you.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2312129

You are stupid.

 

[palehorse]

How is it right that we have homeless children dying from exposure and starvation in ditches, while someone else has billions, and is living in disgusting excess. How is it right at all.

What country are you referring to? The US? Where are these third-world conditions you speak of that have starving and diseased American children dying in ditches?!

It's not "wrong" for anyone to work hard and make a lot (read: an absurd amount) of money. Get that through your thick skull.

Taking excessive amounts of someone else's hard-earned money, simply because others haven't earned their own, would be wrong. Doing so goes against everything this country was founded upon, and I will fight with every last breath to ensure your socialist fantasy never becomes a reality.

 

[ivwshane]

What in the hell makes you think he is going to make LESS if the cost of labor goes up for the entire nation? Frankly, I bet their profit margins stay exactly the same which means in real dollars he will be making more money and still be able to buy whatever he wants with the money he does in fact deserve.

Thats the point you seem incapable of understanding, raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of labor for the entire country. The amount of workers on minimum wage is less than 3% of the hourly work force.

Your understanding of how minimum wage impacts the economy is just simply wrong and evidence of that is your use of government labor rates for labor that is not paid at the minimum wage level.

 

[palehorse]

Your understanding of how minimum wage impacts the economy is just simply wrong

LOL... because you say so?

Econ 101 should really be a required course...