What is a livable wage and should Government be responsible?

[BoberFett]

Please define "reasonable."

As math has already proven, it doesn't matter. This isn't about getting more for the average employee. If the executive pay was split among the employees, they'd barely see a blip in their paycheck.

This is about jealousy and bringing down those at the top.

I don't feel any love for the ultra rich, but I don't have any hate for them either. Remember, hate is not a family value. Unless you hate the rich, then it's OK.

 

[palehorse]

As math has already proven, it doesn't matter. This isn't about getting more for the average employee. If the executive pay was split among the employees, they'd barely see a blip in their paycheck.

This is about jealousy and bringing down those at the top.

I don't feel any love for the ultra rich, but I don't have any hate for them either. Remember, hate is not a family value. Unless you hate the rich, then it's OK.

I agree... I just wanted to see what he'd pull out of his ass to answer that question! LOL

 

[bshole]

As math has already proven, it doesn't matter.

That is just details. I am an idea guy, I am happy to leave the details for the little people.

 

[BoberFett]

That is just details. I am an idea guy, I am happy to leave the details for the little people.

A bad idea guy, yes.

 

[palehorse]

That is just details. I am an idea guy, I am happy to leave the details for the little people.

Well, just so you know, your ideas suck.

Your approach seems familiar, though... are you a Congressman?

 

[ivwshane]

First, all for-profit businesses exist to maximize profits, and most large companies answer to share-holders. If executives fail to do so, they'll probably not be executives for very long -- especially those who show drops in profit over time.

Second, if prices go up, they go up for EVERYONE. Wth does class have to do with it?! Is there some sort of income check at the cash registers that I'm not aware of?

You may be able to argue that the impact of the higher prices will be felt LESS as you go up the income scale; but, to claim that "prices won't go up for the middle class," is just f'n ignorant.

Again, where do you HONESTLY expect the millions of dollars in additional government-imposed overhead to come from? The CEOs paycheck?!

You're a naive bleeding-heart fool.

Yeah you aren't getting it. Here is a hint, prices wouldn't be raised for everyone, in fact if prices were to go up it would be for a small percentage of goods and services.

Here is another economics lesson for you; if prices will go up to cover additional costs then why wouldn't companies raise the prices before hand to make even more profit? The answer is of course that companies set prices based on demand and what the market is willing to pay. So sorry it's not as simple as you think.

While I'm not a fan of huge CEO pay. To say that if you cut CEO pay, the workers will get a reasonable salary is just not true.

I looked up Abercrombie & Fitch (one of the worst ratios)

http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/

1640 to 1.

CEO pay ~48 million.

Number of employees ~90,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_&_Fitch

If you pay the ceo nothing, and take that 48 million and give it to every employee, you get an $533 per employee. Since most are part time, 20hours/week, 50 weeks a year(just to estimate an hourly increase). Each employee would see an extra 50 cents an hour.

amazing.

Yes math is an amazing thing when used correctly.

Let's just poke a small whole in your math equation; you assume all 90,000 employees are making minimum wage, they are not. I'm sure that not all employees only work 20 hours a week either.

But yeah progressives hate math, more specifically they hate correcting the math done by idiots.

 

[ivwshane]

As math has already proven, it doesn't matter. This isn't about getting more for the average employee. If the executive pay was split among the employees, they'd barely see a blip in their paycheck.

This is about jealousy and bringing down those at the top.

I don't feel any love for the ultra rich, but I don't have any hate for them either. Remember, hate is not a family value. Unless you hate the rich, then it's OK.

Who said anything about hate? I just prefer the company someone works for provides enough that rest of the able bodied Americans don't have to subsidize their workers.

But I guess you are one of those "privatize profits and socialize losses" type of guy.

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah you aren't getting it. Here is a hint, prices wouldn't be raised for everyone, in fact if prices were to go up it would be for a small percentage of goods and services.

Here is another economics lesson for you; if prices will go up to cover additional costs then why wouldn't companies raise the prices before hand to make even more profit? The answer is of course that companies set prices based on demand and what the market is willing to pay. So sorry it's not as simple as you think.



Yes math is an amazing thing when used correctly.

Let's just poke a small whole in your math equation; you assume all 90,000 employees are making minimum wage, they are not. I'm sure that not all employees only work 20 hours a week either.

But yeah progressives hate math, more specifically they hate correcting the math done by idiots.

Ah, so the guy making minimum wage deserves a raise, but not the guy making minimum + $1?

I'm sure that'll go over real well.

 

[waggy]

Ah, so the guy making minimum wage deserves a raise, but not the guy making minimum + $1?

I'm sure that'll go over real well.

and that is the big issue ain't it?

are they going to bump everyone up to say $15 an hour from 10? are they going to go up the chain?

or are the people who put in time and worked hard who made $15 and hour just going to get screwed?

what they do changes the outcome.

 

[ivwshane]

Ah, so the guy making minimum wage deserves a raise, but not the guy making minimum + $1?

I'm sure that'll go over real well.

Lol, another righty straw man! Man you guys are pathetic.

 

[Attic]

Do you see what happens Larry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PztgWdMEJdg

Feel like we're all engaged in this all the time. It's entertaining as shit, but at the end where are we?

 

[ivwshane]

and that is the big issue ain't it?

are they going to bump everyone up to say $15 an hour from 10? are they going to go up the chain?

or are the people who put in time and worked hard who made $15 and hour just going to get screwed?

what they do changes the outcome.

Oh yeah that's a huge issue! What the fuck will companies do when the minimum wage, which has never been raised before, is raised!

Oh noes!

Man I wish we could see how this would affect people, if only someone would post data relating to this topic to show its impact! /s

 

[soulcougher73]

No one is starving, tons of food stamp programs. Hungry maybe.



Unfortunately the laws and rules of America can't undo global market forces.

You just proved my point. Why work 40 hours only to be on food stamps and other programs. Should be livable on its own merit.

 

[Agent11]

Good luck getting 40 hours at min wage. they learned it's cheaper to hire more people at 30 hours a week.

The min wage itself isn't an insular issue. The issue is standard of living, and an oppressive mandate for employers to meet doesn't help produce jobs, whether it is a high min wage or healthcare requirements pinned to full time workers.

Add in inflation, trade policy, illegal immigration and pollution and you have a pretty complicated problem.

 

[ivwshane]

Good luck getting 40 hours at min wage. they learned it's cheaper to hire more people at 30 hours a week.

The min wage itself isn't an insular issue. The issue is standard of living, and an oppressive mandate for employers to meet doesn't help produce jobs, whether it is a high min wage or healthcare requirements pinned to full time workers.

Add in inflation, trade policy, illegal immigration and pollution and you have a pretty complicated problem.

I agree which is why I'm also for businesses not providing health care for their employees. It should be a single payer system.

That alone would have a huge impact on employment, not just because businesses would be paying less per employee but also because it would allow for more competition in the employment market place. Workers would no longer feel chained to an employer because of health care worries. More competition in the work place means more competitive wages being offered.

 

[buckshot24]

Who said anything about hate? I just prefer the company someone works for provides enough that rest of the able bodied Americans don't have to subsidize their workers.

But I guess you are one of those "privatize profits and socialize losses" type of guy.

You're a liberal prick, of course you hate rich people. It's sort of a definition thing.

 

[palehorse]

Yeah you aren't getting it. Here is a hint, prices wouldn't be raised for everyone, in fact if prices were to go up it would be for a small percentage of goods and services.

Here is another economics lesson for you; if prices will go up to cover additional costs then why wouldn't companies raise the prices before hand to make even more profit? The answer is of course that companies set prices based on demand and what the market is willing to pay. So sorry it's not as simple as you think.

Wow, this just keeps getting better... You're completely ignoring the fact that manufacturing, supply chain, and other overhead costs (ie. Payroll) ALSO affect the prices for goods and services. Call them the "base prices," if you will, as these are determined BEFORE factors like the market and demand are considered.

You are, quite honestly, the last person on earth who should be handing out economics lessons.

Once again, where will the millions of dollars in increased wages come from? What magical row in the accounting sheets will they pull it from that won't negatively affect prices, profits, employee benefits, staffing, or executive pay?

 

[BoberFett]

Lol, another righty straw man! Man you guys are pathetic.

Straw man? You just made that exact argument. That only minimum wage people would get a part of that CEOs pay. So which is it? Everyone gets a piece or only minimum wage employees?

 

[Veliko]

Wow, this just keeps getting better... You're completely ignoring the fact that manufacturing, supply chain, and other overhead costs (ie. Payroll) ALSO affect the prices for goods and services. Call them the "base prices," if you will, as these are determined BEFORE factors like the market and demand are considered.

You are, quite honestly, the last person on earth who should be handing out economics lessons.

Once again, where will the millions of dollars in increased wages come from? What magical row in the accounting sheets will they pull it from that won't negatively affect prices, profits, employee benefits, staffing, or executive pay?

You have missed his point and gone on to talk about something else.

As he said, raising the minimum wage wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase in prices. If companies thought that they could raise prices by a certain amount then they would have already done so.

The laws of supply and demand don't suddenly change just because a minimum wage is introduced or increased.

I remember when it was first introduced here in the UK, there were the usual doomsayers saying it would be disastrous for the economy... yet it wasn't.

 

[Zebo]

As math has already proven, it doesn't matter. This isn't about getting more for the average employee. If the executive pay was split among the employees, they'd barely see a blip in their paycheck.

This is about jealousy and bringing down those at the top.

I don't feel any love for the ultra rich, but I don't have any hate for them either. Remember, hate is not a family value. Unless you hate the rich, then it's OK.

A lot of rich people got by hook or crook. Pretty good deal when you can bankrupt your banks, rip off old ladies selling them garbage packaged loans, and get 700b from tax payers and trillions mainline from Fed like Blankfine at GOLDMAN gets and tons more bankers. Pretty good deal to be friends of Bush and get no bid contracts. etc etc etc.

I do hate them because its not a free market at the tippy top but is for me. When I lost over 100K holding the bag on two mortages after bust none bailed me out while big home builders did get bailed.

I welcome a truly free market but they fear it.

 

[ivwshane]

You have missed his point and gone on to talk about something else.

As he said, raising the minimum wage wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase in prices. If companies thought that they could raise prices by a certain amount then they would have already done so.

The laws of supply and demand don't suddenly change just because a minimum wage is introduced or increased.

I remember when it was first introduced here in the UK, there were the usual doomsayers saying it would be disastrous for the economy... yet it wasn't.

Thank you!

 

[ivwshane]

You're a liberal prick, of course you hate rich people. It's sort of a definition thing.

And you are a retarded righty so of course facts don't matter to you

 

[ivwshane]

Straw man? You just made that exact argument. That only minimum wage people would get a part of that CEOs pay. So which is it? Everyone gets a piece or only minimum wage employees?

Uh no. I made the counter argument to, taking all of the CEO's pay would equal a .50 per hour raise and I did so using better math.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow, this just keeps getting better... You're completely ignoring the fact that manufacturing, supply chain, and other overhead costs (ie. Payroll) ALSO affect the prices for goods and services. Call them the "base prices," if you will, as these are determined BEFORE factors like the market and demand are considered.

You are, quite honestly, the last person on earth who should be handing out economics lessons.

Once again, where will the millions of dollars in increased wages come from? What magical row in the accounting sheets will they pull it from that won't negatively affect prices, profits, employee benefits, staffing, or executive pay?

Well when ford raised his employees wages it some how magically made him more profit. I'll let you figure that one out but my hopes aren't that high.

I'll give you credit for being the ever obedient corporate apologist though. I like how you excluded profits for any negative affects from a raised minimum wage. I suspect that you would have no problem with the slavery we had in the 1800's where companies paid workers in company dollars that they could only spend in company stores that were located in the company provided housing, after all you appear to put a companies goal of profit above all else.
Profit before people right? Or do you not agree with that sentiment and are simply arguing (poorly I might add) the degree to which people should come first before profit?

I may not be the person to teach economics but at least I attended a class or two.

 

[palehorse]

Well when ford raised his employees wages it some how magically made him more profit. I'll let you figure that one out but my hopes aren't that high.

I'll give you credit for being the ever obedient corporate apologist though. I like how you excluded profits for any negative affects from a raised minimum wage. I suspect that you would have no problem with the slavery we had in the 1800's where companies paid workers in company dollars that they could only spend in company stores that were located in the company provided housing, after all you appear to put a companies goal of profit above all else.
Profit before people right? Or do you not agree with that sentiment and are simply arguing (poorly I might add) the degree to which people should come first before profit?

I may not be the person to teach economics but at least I attended a class or two.

No, you dolt, I'm simply a realist. You're living on another planet if you honestly believe they'll take it from their profits -- which is why I keep asking you where it will REALLY come from.

You know the answer, but you also know that said answer destroys your entire f'n argument.

This isn't fantasyland.