Romney on minimum wage

[BoberFett]

/facepalm

So success comes from the employees but failure comes from management?

 

[dank69]

/facepalm

So success comes from the employees but failure comes from management?

Can employees do everything right while management drives a company into the ground? Is it a realistic situation?

If most employees of a company are terrible (not just a few but a majority), isn't that management's fault?

Can managers run a company at all without employees?

 

[palehorse]

If mcdonalds in North Dakota can afford to pay their employees $20 an hour, then so should the mcdonalds everywhere else.

Ok, you REALLY need to take some Econ and Finance 101 classes... what you just proposed is absolutely ridiculous.

Should the price of a burger be exactly the same everywhere, as well?

Mandatory wages... mandatory prices... minimum wages...maximum profits... what's next? Mandatory housing?!

Or *gasp* mandatory healthcare? Oh, wait... DOH!

 

[hal2kilo]

Slightly off topic but;

Let's see, in 1980 the average CEO's salary was 35 times that of the average worker, now it's 200 to 300 times higher. What skills have current CEO's got that their counterparts didn't have in 1980?

This is the problem. But, just ask the righties those CEO's deserve it.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Slightly off topic but;

Let's see, in 1980 the average CEO's salary was 35 times that of the average worker, now it's 200 to 300 times higher. What skills have current CEO's got that their counterparts didn't have in 1980?

No, I don't think it is off topic. It is completely relevant. Why should the CEO make that much more now than back then? Is there such a scarcity of CEO quality candidates that they have to pay them 300 to 400 times more than the avg. worker? That extra money should be going back to the company in the form of extra pay or improved equipment, etc. You have to be a complete tool to believe it is because CEOs are worth every penny and nothing funny is going on.

 

[Craig234]

No, I don't think it is off topic. It is completely relevant. Why should the CEO make that much more now than back then? Is there such a scarcity of CEO quality candidates that they have to pay them 300 to 400 times more than the avg. worker? That extra money should be going back to the company in the form of extra pay or improved equipment, etc. You have to be a complete tool to believe it is because CEOs are worth every penny and nothing funny is going on.

It's the craziness of some people that causes them to scream murder if they think a low-paid person is overpaid, but also at any suggestion at doing anything about CEO pay.

It seems like some delusional problem where people like to 'feel better than' some others, so they angrily DEMAND not letting the others get more, but they relate to the most wealthy they have nothing in common with as if that puts them 'in the club'. I've seen this cited as a reason why souther whites who mostly did not own any slaves violently defended slavery anyway. They wanted to have that 'lower class'.

This is why Lincoln, running for the presidency, said he was absolutely committed to never considering blacks the 'equals' of whites. Astute politics - and terrible racism.

 

[Texashiker]

Ok, you REALLY need to take some Econ and Finance 101 classes... what you just proposed is absolutely ridiculous.

Why are my suggestions ridiculous?

If a company can afford to pay a high wage in one place, why not in another place?

Of wait, I guess its what the local economy will support?

Should the price of a burger be exactly the same everywhere, as well?

Considering the beef for the meat and grains from the bread came from the same place, sure, why not?

Why would a black angus cow cost more in California then in Texas? Its the same breed of cow, cost the same to raise, requires the same amount of feed and water in both places. But for some reason the burgers in California should cost more then the burgers in Texas?

Uh, no.


If Mcdonalds can turn a billion dollars in profit, there is no excuse for paying near poverty wages.

No, I don't think it is off topic. It is completely relevant. Why should the CEO make that much more now than back then? Is there such a scarcity of CEO quality candidates that they have to pay them 300 to 400 times more than the avg. worker?

A real simple fix to minimum wage, is to define a ratio of how much the CEO can make as compared to the lowest paid employee.

Simple minimum wage law - No CEO can make more then 20X more then the lowest paid employee, benefits and perks included.

 

[ElFenix]

Stop the presses, this is big news! He has the SAME POSITION on something!

 

[Throckmorton]

Exactly why is that? What do you think will happen if I'm forced to pay someone $7/hr when then only create $3/hr of added benefit?

Because a person has to live in order to work for you.

Because a person has to live in order to work for you.

Because a person has to live in order to work for you.

 

[Craig234]

Can employees do everything right while management drives a company into the ground? Is it a realistic situation?

If most employees of a company are terrible (not just a few but a majority), isn't that management's fault?

Can managers run a company at all without employees?

Here's the dirty little secret of CEO's. They'll run companies well for a lot less than they are paid now.

Incentives are fine. But if you tell a CEO he makes $500,000 base and $2 million for great things, or $10 million base and $40 million for great things, you get the same thing.

Now, that's not something one company can implement so easily, when other companies are paying the inflated prices - which is why they need it to be a 'culture'.

How is that culture continued? Well for a start, there is the 'buddy system' where higly paid CEO's serve as each others' Directors, nudge nudge wink wink to compensation issues; and there's the new industry of 'compensation consultants' who supposedly provide 'fair' recommendations - but they know where their bread is buttered, how to get the contract, and they operate in that culture of high pay.

There's also the issue that we just have a lot more concentrated wealth at the big companies, allowing for more money to be available.

As the finance industry has become a leech on society and their share of the economy's profits went from 10%-15% to 40%, Goldman Sachs pays billions in bonuses, over a half million dollars to each of of several thousand employees - just because they have the money to do so and it gives them 'competitive advantage' to lock those people up.

Sometimes there's a great CEO who helps a company do a lot better; more often, there's an 'OK' CEO who runs a big company 'ok'.

How many grocery chains are there nationally? How many of them had CEO's that did something huge with the company, and how many did 'ok'?

Overpaid management - the culture in the US today - is a drain on society and the company.

The 'free market' doesn't fix this any more than it fixes monopoly problems on its own. The people in charge who run companies in that 'free market' are the ones who benefit.

It's a fiction to talk about 'shareholder revolt' pretty much, just as it's a fiction to talk about Congress only listening to citizens and not the big donors. The last big attempt by shareholders to change a company policy was, as I recall, an effort by the Rockefeller family to oppose some bad policies by the company they had created, by organizing a shareholder revolt to elect new board members - and they failed.

Really large institutional shareholders have some influence, but even they have not been able to do much a company at a time.

We're in a vicious cycle that as the top gets more and more, they use it to gain political power to make the rules protect them from any revolt.

This is why at the end of the day, either there is that revolt and things are improved, or as a Supreme Court justice said, 'you can have concentrated wealth or democracy, not both.'

The more the top takes, the more in conflict it is with democracy who could revolt. This is why these corrupt top-heavy regimes get rid of democracy.

Save234

 

[palehorse]

Why are my suggestions ridiculous?

If a company can afford to pay a high wage in one place, why not in another place?

Of wait, I guess its what the local economy will support?

Considering the beef for the meat and grains from the bread came from the same place, sure, why not?

Why would a black angus cow cost more in California then in Texas? Its the same breed of cow, cost the same to raise, requires the same amount of feed and water in both places. But for some reason the burgers in California should cost more then the burgers in Texas?

Uh, no.

OK, that right there is simply pure ignorance of the markets, taxes, logistics, and other factors used to determine locality-based prices and wages -- aka "the costs of doing business in different locations."

As I said, please go back to school for a class or two.

If Mcdonalds can turn a billion dollars in profit, there is no excuse for paying near poverty wages.

I'm still waiting for you to cite an example of that happening to full-time employees of any of the companies you've mentioned...

A real simple fix to minimum wage, is to define a ratio of how much the CEO can make as compared to the lowest paid employee.

Simple minimum wage law - No CEO can make more then 20X more then the lowest paid employee, benefits and perks included.

Government-mandated salary caps all around, woohoooooo!

Ummm, no.

 

[soulcougher73]

I dont agree with Texashiker on tieing minimum wage into company profits. But i do grash his bigger picture of companies making huge profits not paying their employees very well and then on top of that making tax payers subsidize their incomes while the company is making huge profits. That just seems totally wrong.

If you are working for a company they should have to pay you enough that you dont require government/taxpayer assistance to get by. Plus me being a nice person i dont undertand how youd want to run a company where you only pay your employees the bare minimum when they are part of the reason you are making millions/billions in profit. You need them just as much as they need you. Only seems fair to share your success with the people who helped bring it about.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The 'free market' doesn't fix this any more than it fixes monopoly problems on its own. The people in charge who run companies in that 'free market' are the ones who benefit.

It's a fiction to talk about 'shareholder revolt' pretty much, just as it's a fiction to talk about Congress only listening to citizens and not the big donors. The last big attempt by shareholders to change a company policy was, as I recall, an effort by the Rockefeller family to oppose some bad policies by the company they had created, by organizing a shareholder revolt to elect new board members - and they failed.

Really large institutional shareholders have some influence, but even they have not been able to do much a company at a time.

We're in a vicious cycle that as the top gets more and more, they use it to gain political power to make the rules protect them from any revolt.

This is why at the end of the day, either there is that revolt and things are improved, or as a Supreme Court justice said, 'you can have concentrated wealth or democracy, not both.'

The more the top takes, the more in conflict it is with democracy who could revolt. This is why these corrupt top-heavy regimes get rid of democracy.

Save234

So what's your solution? Taxation doesn't fix any of causes of the problem you described, it merely lets the CEO's keep less of their pay. It also punishes everyone else who makes a lot of money fairly. Improving corporate governance is the only viable solution.

 

[Texashiker]

Government-mandated salary caps all around, woohoooooo!

Ummm, no.

Ummm, yes.

Why not?

Sometimes capitalism is not a good thing.

And I have provided you with links to examples, they are in post #100.

 

[Carmen813]

Why would you think that?

There are other things employers can provide besides wages, such as flexible work hours.

With minimum wage at a set rate, small businesses are at a disadvantage. Why should a fortune 500 company that makes billions of dollars in profits be required to pay the same minimum wage as a small town store that is barely scrapping by.




Lets say your company also makes 10 billion in yearly profits. Then you should have no problem paying a decent wage.

Unless of course that 10 billion was made from exploiting low wage workers.

Namely because they would pay so little that working for them would be a waste of ones times due to cost of living. And even if they offered flexible hours, they would still need to find people to fill those hours when no one is around. It's a lose lose.

 

[Texashiker]

Namely because they would pay so little that working for them would be a waste of ones times due to cost of living.

Isn't that where single parents with children working for minimum wage are right now?

Have you seen the price of daycare lately? How about the price of gas, have you filled up your car or ruck lately? Even if a working single parent is making just above the poverty line (not enough to receive benefits), daycare for the child eats up a major part of the paycheck.

Go to work for minimum wage, pay most of your check to daycare and transportation, or sit your butt at home and draw welfare - that is the choice a lot of parents face.

Or, let one parent work, not get married, live together, and the family draw benefits.

With minimum wage like it is today, there is no incentive for an unskilled person to go to work.

 

[Patranus]

In a GOP utopia, we would all be making menial wages and the Corporations would be raking in more then the record profits they all ready enjoy.

How would corporations rake in record profit if everyone was making menial wages?

 

[Patranus]

Ummm, yes.

Why not?

Sometimes capitalism is not a good thing.

And I have provided you with links to examples, they are in post #100.

LOL

 

[MovingTarget]

Ummm, yes.

Why not?

Sometimes capitalism is not a good thing.

And I have provided you with links to examples, they are in post #100.

TH, I have to agree with you here. I like many are against absolute caps of pay, but what you propose isn't one of those. It is a relative cap. CEOs can still make obscenely high pay, but the rising tide of a company must lift all boats. That ensures that actual productivity has more incentive in the marketplace.

 

[Carmen813]

Isn't that where single parents with children working for minimum wage are right now?

Have you seen the price of daycare lately? How about the price of gas, have you filled up your car or ruck lately? Even if a working single parent is making just above the poverty line (not enough to receive benefits), daycare for the child eats up a major part of the paycheck.

Go to work for minimum wage, pay most of your check to daycare and transportation, or sit your butt at home and draw welfare - that is the choice a lot of parents face.

Or, let one parent work, not get married, live together, and the family draw benefits.

With minimum wage like it is today, there is no incentive for an unskilled person to go to work.

I'm saying that by scaling wages to profits for a small business you would destroy any incentive people have to take those jobs. It'd be all well and good if we had fixed prices on food/gas, but in reality that is a terrible idea.

There are a lot of problems with opportunity in the U.S. for lower income Americans, and the welfare system in particular is setup in a way which makes working entry-level jobs or relocating tremendously difficult due to the hard caps and cliff you can fall off of. There are things we could be doing to address that.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm saying that by scaling wages to profits for a small business you would destroy any incentive people have to take those jobs.

I do not understand why you would think a structured minimum wage would cause people not to apply for a job?

You only work for the highest paid employer in the nation?

Tell us, how much do you make a year? Is it any less then say 10 million a year? Why would you work for any less then the maximum? You only work at jobs where you can start out as CEO making millions a year? If you are making any less the 10,000 a day, why bother applying for the job?

 

[Patranus]

I do not understand why you would think a structured minimum wage would cause people not to apply for a job?

You only work for the highest paid employer in the nation?

Tell us, how much do you make a year? Is it any less then say 10 million a year? Why would you work for any less then the maximum?

I really don't get why the free market cannot determine what certain skill sets are worth.

 

[Texashiker]

I really don't get why the free market cannot determine what certain skill sets are worth.

Why would you think the US is a free market?

We have millions of illegal immigrants who will work for a lower wage then most US citizens.

We have free trade with china. Labor cost get to high, close the plant and move overseas.

When the factory closes, the people have to be retrained, which a lot of them go into the service sector because the manufacturing jobs are gone. More people in the service sector means wages are driven down even more.

If we did not have 8% - 10% unemployment rate, and we did not have free trade, then yea, maybe then the market would determine what wages to pay.

Since the 1980s I have seen shipyards close, numerous welding shops close, people that once held metal working jobs are being forced into other job markets.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I really don't get why the free market cannot determine what certain skill sets are worth.

They can and do. And then they don't want to pay certain segments so they ship the jobs overseas. That is where they need to be taxed heavily...or in a suggestion by I believe Pres. Obama--remove any of their tax breaks.

 

[QuantumPion]

Because a person has to live in order to work for you.

Yeah. Except your definition of "living wage" has nothing to do with the bare minimum required to survive. The minimum wage is already far far above that minimum survival rate, hence why so many illegal immigrants come here to get work. You just want a middle class life style handed to you because you think you are entitled to it. It is pure class warfare envy.