View Full Version : Santorium lowers middle class living standards
This is as low as it goes, as the GOP fights to expand sub-minimum wage sweatshops across the country. Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum is leading the charge for a GOP bill that would ostensibly raise the minimum wage by $1.10 per hour, but in reality would cut wages for millions of American workers and expand unregulated sweatshops across the country. As this Economic Policy Institute analysis details, the bill is a trojan horse for assaulting workers rights.
Licensing Sweatshops: While a $1.10 per hour minimum wage increase by itself would help 1.8 million workers, Santorum includes a poison bill exempting any business with revenues of $1 million or less from regulation -- raising the exemption from the current $500,000 level.
The upshot: while 1.2 million workers could qualify for a minimum wage increase, another 6.8 million workers, who work in companies with revenues between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per year, would lose their current minimum wage protection.
And an even larger number of businesses, those with revenues under $7 million, would be exempt from fines under a range of other safety, health, pension and other labor laws. Essentially, the realm of unregulated sweatshops would be expanded and legalized under Santorum's bill. . . .
Banning State Minimum Wage Laws . . .
With Santorum's bill as law, you would end up with a situation where small and even medium size restaurants and other businesses with tipped employees would be exempt from the federal minimum wage, and state governments would be barred from requiring employers to pay actual wages to tipped workers. Essentially, those workers could be hired for zero dollars and told they had to live only off tips, however little those were.
. . . Killing Overtime: It gets worse-- the 40-hour work week would be abolished and companies would not have to pay overtime if they cut hours the next week.
Secretariat
03-06-2005, 09:46 PM
Santorum is the worst of the worst.
I am ashamed Santorum is my Senator. Vote the bastard out!
lsbets
03-07-2005, 09:15 AM
Since when are people who make minimum wage middle class? Pretty disingenuous thread title.
ls,
Lowering the standard of living for the minimum wage earners has a multiplying affect on all of us. In my lifetime of work when the minimum wage went up I got a raise, the raises were always directly correalated to the increase. Don't you think the opposite will have similiar results?
Also note the line about eliminating overtime pay.
lsbets
03-07-2005, 12:20 PM
ljb,
Please provide some data to prove your assertion that a raise in the minimum wage increases everyone else's eages. In all the disussion of the minimum wage that I have heard, I have never heard that claim.
boxcar
03-07-2005, 01:53 PM
ljb wrote:
Lowering the standard of living for the minimum wage earners has a multiplying affect on all of us. In my lifetime of work when the minimum wage went up I got a raise, the raises were always directly correalated to the increase. Don't you think the opposite will have similiar results?
This may be true to some extent. But the only people who may reap some benefit from a hike are hourly workers. Salaried workers would hardly ever be affected -- if ever! Reason for this is that the vast majority of salaried folks are already working above minimum wage levels.
So, tell us, LJB, how much an hour do you make mucking out stalls, since you claim you have always been affected by these kinds of increases? :D
Boxcar
So tell me Boxcar,
The salaried supervisors of these hourly workers won't be getting raises ? Try to be realistic and logical Boxcar.
In reality, raising minimum wage will not help anyone-it will hurt. The numbe of minimum wage jobs will decrease - the pie will not change in size, as the slciesget larger, the number will go down. Minimum wage job holderrs typically do not contribute any special skills and are therefore expendable. This is not political or personal, it is reality. With all the high-tech, skilled jobs disappearing, why would a business not do the same with unskilled non-contributing people?
Many minimum wage jobs were never intended to be jobs of family support - they were designed to be part term jobs, summer jobs, "extra money" jobs for retirees.
Tom,
What was the minimum wage when you started working? How will increasing it decrease the number of jobs? Those floors still need scrubbing, those burgers still need flipping etc. etc. etc.
Down here in Florida the jobs picture is great. More people working then ever before and yet the Medicare expense is out of control, not because of lawsuits but because the jobs are minimum wage and the people can't afford health care.
And so far no one has replied to Santorium's attack on overtime pay.
Go figure!
I don't know what the minimum was, but I started out at $1.50 an hour. When I got my first full time job, I was knocking down $3.02 and hour with my night shift premium.
How will it kill jobs? Easy - the same why jobs are getting cut everyday- downsizing. Yeah the floors still need to be scrubbed - twince a week at my place - use dto be everyday. Used to have three people as janitors - got one now. The concept is so simple it is used everyday - cut back on services, cut back on people, then force the ones left to do twice the work they used to. You don't like it, the other guy will do it and YOU are the one out the door. Did you ever hear the old saying around factories....stick that broom up yer arse and sweep the floor as you work. True.
Yeah, it sucs. But is reality. Raise minimum wage and that will just be one more excuse to hire illegals or downsize. The pie will not get any larger - the number of slices will go down.
NO OT this week, less hours next week. It's called comp-time. Been around a long time. I was gettig that deal in 1973. Loved it. Sometimes. Hated it others. Nothing new here.
Now, I am not supporting this bill - it it a terrible bill, but it is not the end of the world.
If congress wants to to help American workers, it has a lot of low-hanging fruit it can grab right away. How about this: round up all illegals and then let Americans pick furit and vegetables for minimum wage. Why is that work so beneath people?
boxcar
03-08-2005, 10:34 AM
Tom wrote:
Many minimum wage jobs were never intended to be jobs of family support - they were designed to be part term jobs, summer jobs, "extra money" jobs for retirees.
And first and foremost min. wage jobs are entry level positions -- for uneductated, undereducated or unskilled people just entering the workforce. As you rightly state, they were never intended to pay enough to support a family.
Boxcar
boxcar
03-08-2005, 10:47 AM
LJB wrote
So tell me Boxcar,
The salaried supervisors of these hourly workers won't be getting raises.
In a word: No! Why should they? Salaried people work under an different set of rules than do hourly folks -- even in retail businesses. For example, hourly folks get paid overtime for working anything over 40 hours per week. Conversely, it's not uncommon at all for most salaried managers ("supervisors") in retail establishments to work 60-hour weeks with -- and even more -- with no O.T. pay.
Most salaried managers/supervisiors in retail businesses will also get paid bonus checks periodically, if they make the company's sales projections. Conversely, most salaried folks don't get paid bonuses -- or in those rare instances when they do, it's just a small fraction of what their salaried bosses earn, etc.
Try to be realistic and logical Boxcar.
Stay out of the environments of reality and logic, Captain Clueless; for once you try to enter therein, you become as a fish out of water.
Boxcar
Bobby
03-08-2005, 11:07 AM
It's really a shame. What it says is that sanatorium is helping his big business friends at the expense of the average Joe. He's up for reelection in 06.
Secretariat
03-08-2005, 02:23 PM
It's really a shame. What it says is that sanatorium is helping his big business friends at the expense of the average Joe. He's up for reelection in 06.
I hear he's behind in the polls to Bob Casey's kid, the former governor. Not much for polls, but let's hope they can get Santorum out of there.
It's really a shame. What it says is that sanatorium is helping his big business friends at the expense of the average Joe. He's up for reelection in 06.
I agree. It's the modus operandi of the Republican Party. Doesn't Bush do the same?
Boxcar,
I spent the better part of my working career as a salaried employee and I hate to tell you this but I got raises as often if not more often then the hourly workers I was supervising. You may want to look a little deeper then just the retail industry.
I must repeat, as hard as it is for you, "try to be realistic and logical boxcar."
boxcar
03-09-2005, 12:13 AM
LJB wrote:
Boxcar,
I spent the better part of my working career as a salaried employee and I hate to tell you this but I got raises as often if not more often then the hourly workers I was supervising. You may want to look a little deeper then just the retail industry.
I must repeat, as hard as it is for you, "try to be realistic and logical boxcar."
Two things: You use the past tense "spent". How long ago was this? 5 years ago? 10? 20?
Secondly, you don't talk any specifics. When you say you received as many, if not more raises than hourly employees -- what does this mean, specifically? Did hourly employees get two raises a year? One raise?
Now...I don't work in the retail industry, nor have I ever in my adult life. However, I do have some good friends (all of them managers of their operations who do), and I can tell you that down in my neck of the woods, most hourly employees in the retail food industry get one review and, therefore, one raise per year. Ditto for lower echelon hourly-paid supervisiors/managers.
The high level managers are salaried, and they do very well to get one raise per year. Reason for this is that a high percentage of their earnings comes from bonuses they earn -- ususally quarterly. In a looser sense, the managers are working on a draw against commission! So...salaries to them are no big thing.
Generally speaking, the retail end of business is highly competitive, and very many companies are actually somewhat frugal when it comes to handing out raises. Many, if not most major companies no longer give "automatic" pay raises, but instead grade their rank and file employees (the hourly-paid) strictly on their performances.
Moreover, some companies even take their payroll issues more seriously by using payroll management software that will actually write the schedules for the hourly employees. And here's the kicker with these programs: They actually have built-in biases in them that favor the least experienced, lowest paid employees, and will give more hours to these types than to their higher paid co-workers.
So...tell me again, how I'm out of touch with reality, and I'm not being logical?
Boxcar
Boxcar,
You put up a lot of words, were you trying to make a point?
Secretariat
03-09-2005, 07:34 AM
An honest question. In terms of real dollars added to the wage or salary, who got the bigger increase, Box?
I guess I gotta look up the meaning of "conservative." Apparently, it don't mean what I though it meant. Regulating OT is something the governement has no business getting involved in. Or setting minimum wage laws. The States should be handling that. Nor should the Feds be restricting lawsuits - that is the work of the judicial branch. The class action legislation was payback to huge campaign contributors by a president who has clearly soldout the American people.
Equineer
03-10-2005, 08:44 AM
Bush & Santorum = BS
It's a joke, but not laughable, how the neo-cons (masquerading as true conservatives) have managed to dupe and intellectually cuckold millions of voters until they are soft as grapes between the ears.
The U.S. economy, insofar as it impacts the lives of working families, has been driven for several decades by expansion of the Small Business Sector. Meanwhile, the relative impact of the Fortune 500 companies and big business sector has been diminishing. Businessweek and other credible sources have been confirming this trend since the 1970s.
Who are the workers in the Small Business Sector (SBS)? The SBS includes a majority of the 28 million workers, about a quarter of the total workforce, who now earn less than $9.04 an hour.
The SBS includes a majority of the 33 million workers who have NO health insurance (according to 2003 Census data).For his part, Santorum proposes to (1) kill overtime pay, (2) exempt millions of SBS workers from a guaranteed minimum wage, and (3) even make it possible to totally eliminate an hourly wage for jobs that already depend on tipping to keep the wolf from the door. So while Bush says Social Security (SS) funding from payroll taxation is in dire jeopardy, Santorum's proposal will only make SS funding from payroll taxation a bigger problem than it already is.
Moreover, Bush proposes to divert existing SS payroll taxes into Wall Street funds for those lucky enough to be FICA wage earners. To finance this diversion, the current $1.7-Trillion in the SS Trust Fund must be tapped, but it is already invested to finance the national debt, so the Treasury will have to attract $1.7-Trillion from new (mostly foreign) investors in order to release these funds. Beyond that, Bush and others in Washington propose SS benefit reductions, and most economists project that the government would have to borrow, adding $1-Trillion to $4-Trillion to our national debt to fund Bush's diversion proposal through the first 8-10 years.
Meanwhile, none of this (except ominous benefit reduction proposals) actually addresses the basic SS funding problem, which is that our current system of payroll taxation is floundering. There is a massive amount of tax evasion by millions of Schedule-C taxpayers who go to great lengths to avoid paying Self-Employment Social Security taxes... respected economists have flatly stated that SS would be funded throughout the 21st century if the IRS could actually collect SS taxes on the growing proportion of actual personal income that is now slipping through cracks in our tax system.
And the big elephant in the room is medical costs... how many uninsured Americans can afford a hospital stay at an average cost that will exceed $1,500 per day in 2005?
Special business interests, and particularly the medical/pharmaceutical lobbyists, have Washington in their back pocket.
Right behind Social Security is the Medicare/Medicaid trainwreck, which is in worse financial shape than Social Security.
Bobby
03-10-2005, 10:55 AM
The thing about Bush is that he has to be the most ideological, fanatical, reactionary president ever. He's much more "conservative" than his dad, reagan, nixon, etc.. Strips doctors of any responsibility, slashes overtime, allows illegals to compete with citizens for jobs b/c illegals can accept less $, spends hundreds of billions on a war for some unknown reason, cuts taxes for the wealthy, turns SS in private accounts managed by his friends on Wall Street, gives his old "oil" buddies at Halliburton the IRAQ contracts, well, my point is the list goes on and on. And then to top it all, he's gonna allow credit card companies who dupe college students with their cards to make em pay it back after they file bankruptcy
PaceAdvantage
03-10-2005, 11:13 AM
Fortunately for you, most of what you listed has yet to come to pass, even though you write as though it has....
Equineer
03-10-2005, 12:11 PM
Bobby,
IMHO, it is abundantly clear that you would NOT attempt to pass driver's education by looking exclusively out the side windows and in the rear view mirror. :)
boxcar
03-10-2005, 01:36 PM
ljb asks:
Boxcar,
You put up a lot of words, were you trying to make a point?
Two things: You've accentuated the point on top of your own head by not providing any specifics I requested, and secondly, you're seriously out of touch with what's going on today with so many hourly employees, especially in the retail sector of the labor market.
Boxcar
boxcar
03-10-2005, 01:42 PM
Secretariat wrote:
An honest question.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
In terms of real dollars added to the wage or salary, who got the bigger increase, Box?
Who do you think benefits the most, and why? Could it have something to do (even remotely) with the level of responsibility generally assigned to each group, and the level of job-related skills required of both (i.e. hourly and salaried workers)?
Boxcar
ljb asks:
Boxcar,
You put up a lot of words, were you trying to make a point?
Two things: You've accentuated the point on top of your own head by not providing any specifics I requested, and secondly, you're seriously out of touch with what's going on today with so many hourly employees, especially in the retail sector of the labor market.
Boxcar
First off. Personal attacks just show an inability to argue effectively. Secondly what difference does when I worked have to do with this discussion. My wife worked in the retail sector of the labor market for years so I do have an idea of what's going on. I still have relatives working in this market. My wife also got raises when the minimum wage was increased. My daughter who does clerical works in the health care field got a raise last year that was just a bit less then the inflation rate.
boxcar
03-11-2005, 12:26 AM
ljb wrote:
First off. Personal attacks just show an inability to argue effectively.
Not a personal attack...just an accurate observation.
Secondly what difference does when I worked have to do with this discussion.
Because you've made ambiguous claims and supposed correlations between salaried employess and hourly ones, and I wanted to know what time frame -- or in your case -- what planet all these raises took place. You may recall that you wrote:
I spent the better part of my working career as a salaried employee and I hate to tell you this but I got raises as often if not more often then the hourly workers I was supervising. You may want to look a little deeper then just the retail industry.
My contention has been all along that there is little or no correlation, in most cases, between what happens with salaried employees and hourly ones, since each group operates on a separate platform, as it were.
My second contention is that in this day and age, most folks (in either group) get only one raise per year -- or in rare instances two per year in the case of some hourly employees. This makes your "point" above about as relevant to this discussion as the price of American Cheese would be to this country's divorce rate. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
Secretariat
03-11-2005, 08:21 AM
Secretariat wrote:
An honest question.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
In terms of real dollars added to the wage or salary, who got the bigger increase, Box?
Who do you think benefits the most, and why? Could it have something to do (even remotely) with the level of responsibility generally assigned to each group, and the level of job-related skills required of both (i.e. hourly and salaried workers)?
Boxcar
So your answer is yes, the manangement workers got more "real dollars" than the guys or gals in the front line...Thanks.
Secretariat
03-11-2005, 08:43 AM
Box,
See if I can make this clearer by example.
Two workers. One makes 20K a year. One makes a 100K a year. Both get 4% raises over five years.
20K worker
Year 1 =20,000
Year 2 = 20,800
Year 3=21,632
Year 4=22,497
Year 5 =23.397
An increase of 3,397 real dollars over 5 years
100K worker
Year 1=100,000
Year 2=104,000
Year 3=108,160
Year 4=112,486
Year 5=116,986
An increase of 16,986 real dollars over 5 years.
A difference of 13,589 over 5 years in real dollars between the workers.
Now imagine this trend occurring over the last 40 years going back to the 60's by comparing CEO pay to those at the botrtom making minimum wage.
Not only have the CEO's benefitted from a larger % increase, they have also been given multiple tax breaks seperating poorer workers from their management. In fact the minimum wage has not even kept up with the rate of inflation from 1970 to the present day. if this trend continues eventually companies will have one guy making 1 billion a year, and workers in China making 1 cent an hour. Is this your goal?
This gets to the fundamental question. Is a minimum wage worker today worth less or doing less work than in 1970, compared to a CEO's work in 1970 compared to today's CEO? Why the growing disparity in pay?
Equineer
03-11-2005, 11:51 AM
Secretariat,
You suggested comparing the 70s to today...
Here's a purely anecdotal comparison of the "good old days" to the present...
The average starting salary for 2004 graduates was $52K for electrical engineers and $49K for computer science graduates.
When I graduated in the 1960s, there was really no such thing as a computer science degree, so a bunch of us with BA/BS degrees went to work as IBM Systems Programmer Trainees for $12K, while electrical engineers started as high as $16K.
As mere trainees, we were able to live better than 2004 computer science graduates... company-paid benefits, including health, were generous, and Social Security withholding was much less.
In terms of actual buying power, our $12K was equivalent to $70K in today's dollars... fresh out of college (with no credit cards debt like today's graduates) we had to party hearty to spend our paychecks!
And those fortunate electrical engineering graduates, at $16K, earned the equivalent of $93K in today's dollars!
Bobby
03-11-2005, 12:24 PM
Not everyone can get on the billionaires list. It is reserved for the Gates, Buffetts sand Waltons.
Eq and Sec
What do u suggest we do? Corporate profits trump employee pay everytime. This is a Walmart world - low pay, poor benefits, no unions. Walmart makes Krogers, safeway, cut their benefits to compete. They shut down the oil and lube shop, the garden center, the toy store, the pharmacy, the barber shop, the nails shop, etc.. Those places provided higher pay and better benefits.
Health insurance used to mean something. It be cheaper for me not to have any and mooch off the system.
Boxcar,
Again your narrowmind disallows any attempt at an intelligent debate.
(narrowmind = an accurate observation)
I have many years of employment in which I have been a public employee, a private employee and self employeed. In all these efforts I recieved raises at varying times and in varying amounts. One thing held true no matter what my position or job, when minimum wages went up, I got a raise in short time. On the other hand when the CEO got a bonus I may have got an invitation to the annual christmas party. Your innate refusal to see anyones point but your own really hinders any type of meaningful discussion.
boxcar
03-12-2005, 12:37 AM
Secretariat wrote:
See if I can make this clearer by example.
Two workers. One makes 20K a year. One makes a 100K a year. Both get 4% raises over five years.
Oh...boy, here we go. Both, by your own words, get the identical percentage raise hike, right? Identical = same, right?
Our resident "mathematician: continues:
An increase of 16,986 real dollars over 5 years.
A difference of 13,589 over 5 years in real dollars between the workers.
Now imagine this trend occurring over the last 40 years going back to the 60's by comparing CEO pay to those at the botrtom making minimum wage.
Not only have the CEO's benefitted from a larger % increase...
Stop the music! You just got done saying that both received the exact same raise in terms of percentages over a 5-year period. Now you're saying that the [eeeevil ] CEOs benefit from a larger % increase? This is the exactly the kind of double speak you libs use when some entitlement program's budget is increased only 4% over the previous year's budget instead of the anticipated 6%. Because it was scaled back 2 percentage points, you libs say this constitutes a draconian budget cut. But an increase of any percentage over the the previous year's budget cannot possibly constitute a cut. It's still an increase -- just not as large as 6%. (But I digress to make a point about faulty logic.)
The CEO didn't benefit from a larger percentage increase because he and the janitor-in-the-drum received identical percentile raises. The only reason the CEO realized more in actual dollars is because the base salary which he started from is "only" 5x greater than the janitor's :rolleyes: Common sense should tell you that the CEO's raises, in actual dollars, will indeed be considerably more than the lower paid worker.
If you have problems comprehending this, then think in terms of both these people having saving accounts in the same bank -- that earn the same interest. The CEO has 100K in his account, while the poorer guy has only 5K in his account. Who do you think is going to earn more interest (in terms of actual dollars) on his money? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
they have also been given multiple tax breaks seperating poorer workers from their management.
This has nothing to do with the situation. But since you brought it up, you libs love the income tax system, don't you? Of course, the income tax is going to favor the wealthy. This is just one of many reasons why I favor a completely transparent, loophole-free consumption tax system. So please, don't whine and complain to me about the unfairness of the income tax system, which both political parties dearly love to death.
In fact the minimum wage has not even kept up with the rate of inflation from 1970 to the present day. if this trend continues eventually companies will have one guy making 1 billion a year, and workers in China making 1 cent an hour. Is this your goal?
Aside from another Great Depression taking place, I'm pretty much set for life, so quite, frankly, it won't affect me one way or the other. But speaking practically, there will always be a great disparity between the head honcho's income and the peons way beneath him. And there rightfully should be a large dispartiy due to a little item called "responsibility" -- which CEO's shoulder far more of than the peons do. Of course, this doesn't mean that some or even many CEOs aren't way overpaid -- but hey...then let the Board of Directors address those situations.
This gets to the fundamental question. Is a minimum wage worker today worth less or doing less work than in 1970, compared to a CEO's work in 1970 compared to today's CEO? Why the growing disparity in pay?
If the answers above don't satisfy you, then you'll never get it.
Boxcar
boxcar
03-12-2005, 12:47 AM
ljb wrote:
Boxcar,
Again your narrowmind disallows any attempt at an intelligent debate.
(narrowmind = an accurate observation)
Or did you mean to say: narrowmind = inaccurate observation? :rolleyes:
But regardless...the one big advantage the "narrowminded" have is that they tend to filter out all the unwanted, needless and unprofitable garbage in which their more broadminded counterparts love to wallow.
I have many years of employment in which I have been a public employee, a private employee and self employeed.
Yeah...sure. Yada, yada, yada. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, maybe? :rolleyes:
Go live in your dream world.
Boxcar
Sec posted:
"Not only have the CEO's benefitted from a larger % increase, they have also been given multiple tax breaks seperating poorer workers from their management. In fact the minimum wage has not even kept up with the rate of inflation from 1970 to the present day. if this trend continues eventually companies will have one guy making 1 billion a year, and workers in China making 1 cent an hour. Is this your goal?"
For one thing, I don't care what workers in China make. And as to CEOs and minimum wage earners, after you get by the fact hat your illustration is so ridiculous, consider that the market has already decide that the 100,000 a year guy is 10 times more valuable the company than the 10,000 a year guy.
I would guess the contributions of the 10K guy are at best limited and more likely non-existent. Why should the guy who is worht 10 times a much as the other guy share the same dollar value raise?
You hav eto accept the fact - MOST WORKERS ARE NOT WORTH THE MINIMUM WAGE AS IT IS TODAY, let alone raising it. Raise it ans you will destoy the number of min wage jobs....the pie WILL NOT get bigger - the number of slices will get smaller.
Secretariat
03-12-2005, 04:40 PM
Tell you what Tom. I'm for keeping the minimum wage where it is "if" we enact the maximum wage job that keeps anyone from making more than a maximum amount. Just think of the revenue we could collect than. Maybe even wipe out the debt. And we could start it at a billion.
And we do this by paying people more than they are worth? I don't agree. The pie will not get any bigger.
Tom,
I don't believe we pay anyone more then they are worth. Many years ago when Johnny Carson got a million dollar contract it was a big deal. Many folks were aghast at such a figure for someone who tells jokes and talks to people on tv. Our local paper had a question of the day column asking if he was overpaid. My response was something like. It is a free market and the excutives at NBC have agreed that Johnny is worth 1 million dollars. Currently ceos of large corporations are paid enormous sums, they must be worth it don't you think? Being on a fixed income I would actually prefer they don't raise the minimum wage but I know that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Ah yeas, but the rising tide sinks the ones moored on a short line. :confused:
Secretariat
03-13-2005, 12:09 AM
Secretariat wrote:
The CEO didn't benefit from a larger percentage increase because he and the janitor-in-the-drum received identical percentile raises. The only reason the CEO realized more in actual dollars is because the [b]base salary which he started from is "only" 5x greater than the janitor's :rolleyes: Common sense should tell you that the CEO's raises, in actual dollars, will indeed be considerably more than the lower paid worker.
If you have problems comprehending this, then think in terms of both these people having saving accounts in the same bank -- that earn the same interest. The CEO has 100K in his account, while the poorer guy has only 5K in his account. Who do you think is going to earn more interest (in terms of actual dollars) on his money? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
they have also been given multiple tax breaks seperating poorer workers from their management.
This has nothing to do with the situation. But since you brought it up, you libs love the income tax system, don't you? Of course, the income tax is going to favor the wealthy. This is just one of many reasons why I favor a completely transparent, loophole-free consumption tax system. So please, don't whine and complain to me about the unfairness of the income tax system, which both political parties dearly love to death.
In fact the minimum wage has not even kept up with the rate of inflation from 1970 to the present day. if this trend continues eventually companies will have one guy making 1 billion a year, and workers in China making 1 cent an hour. Is this your goal?
Aside from another Great Depression taking place, I'm pretty much set for life, so quite, frankly, it won't affect me one way or the other. But speaking practically, there will always be a great disparity between the head honcho's income and the peons way beneath him. And there rightfully should be a large dispartiy due to a little item called "responsibility" -- which CEO's shoulder far more of than the peons do. Of course, this doesn't mean that some or even many CEOs aren't way overpaid -- but hey...then let the Board of Directors address those situations.
This gets to the fundamental question. Is a minimum wage worker today worth less or doing less work than in 1970, compared to a CEO's work in 1970 compared to today's CEO? Why the growing disparity in pay?
If the answers above don't satisfy you, then you'll never get it.
Boxcar
I hate to resort to name calling, but in your case I will make an exception. Box, you are an idiot. The quote I agree with is your statement "of course the tax system favors the wealthy."
Yes, I typed a % rather than a $, but you missed the entire point of my post which was that in terms of "real dollars" using an identical 4% increase that the division between management pay and base worker pay IN REAL DOLLARS grows larger and larger over the years seperating the distance between worker and managment. You as much admit as much in your bank account example.
Common sense should not tell you that CEO raises should be more than that of workers. In fact if a CEO is inefficient such as the former HP CEO she should have received a draconic cut in pay, not a raise and a golden parachute.
The division between worker and CEO is even outpacing identical rate increases as I pointed out from the 70's, but even if it was identical it creates an ever increasing division of wealth. If you can't see this just look at the seperation between worker and CEO in the 60's and 70's and today.
And as to minimum wage you reveal your true family values saying, "I"M pretty much set for life so it won't bother me a bit."
Don't worry Box I get it. All too clearly.
boxcar
03-13-2005, 02:33 AM
Secretariat wrote:
I hate to resort to name calling, but in your case I will make an exception. Box, you are an idiot. The quote I agree with is your statement "of course the tax system favors the wealthy."
Yes, I typed a % rather than a $, but...
Typical liberalese garbage. "Yes, I typed a %...but. You need to learn to say what you mean and mean what you say.
Of course, the disparity grows larger in "real dollars", meathead. Any fourth-grader would be able to figure this out, i.e. $100K is 5x more than %20K coming right out of the chute! What in the world would you expect to happen? For the disparity to shrink!? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So, just what was the startling revelation to your little discovery?
Common sense should not tell you that CEO raises should be more than that of workers.
In your stupid example, CEO's raise was not more -- in terms of percentages.
Pray tell, sir, in your world of La La Land, how would you work out increases?
Let's see...you would give the 20K guy a 4% increase the first year, which would amount to $800. in "actual dollars" (to borrow your phrase). And in your fantasy world, this means the CEO would get no raise at all (but even so the huge dispartiy between base salaries still remains).
Or maybe you got up one morning feeling really magnanimous and you decided to give the $100K CEO a .0008 raise that would keep his actual dollars on even keel with the "poor slob". In this scenario the rate of increase
would only represent a mere 20% of the "poor slob's" rate of increase.
But since, by your own admission, "common sense" (something to which you are a complete stranger) should not tell us that the CEO's actual dollars raise should be greater than the peon's, maybe you'd decide to give the CEO a $400. raise the first year -- which would amount to 50% of what the peon would be getting in "real dollars". Further, in this scenario, the CEO's rate of increase would amount to .004 -- compared to .04 for the peon -- which would further mean that CEO's rate of increase would amount to one tenth (10%) of the peon's.
But in order for the poor peon (in his lifetime) to have any realistic shot at all at shrinking the disparity in "real dollars" between his base pay and the CEO's, you'd have to give hefty annual increases to the poor slob with corresponding large annual cuts in pay to the CEO. This, to you, would make perfectly good "common sense". :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The division between worker and CEO is even outpacing identical rate increases as I pointed out from the 70's, but even if it was identical it creates an ever increasing division of wealth. If you can't see this just look at the seperation between worker and CEO in the 60's and 70's and today.
Yeah...and while you're at it, take a look at all the inflation during these periods, too.
And as to minimum wage you reveal your true family values saying, "I"M pretty much set for life so it won't bother me a bit."
Don't worry Box I get it. All too clearly.
You don't get diddly squat, Mr. Pinhead. I was not born with any silver spoons in my mouth. I made my money the good ol' fashioned way -- lots of work, then more work, then more on top of that. In addition to all that, I saved, saved some more, and continue to save. I managed to keep myself virtually debt-free most of my adult life. I've never known what it is to pay a mortgage of either of my two homes. And I make no apologies to anyone for being successful in what I have put my mind to -- which since the early '70s was beating the races.
And you know what, Sec...this will really blow your mind...I don't owe my success to the Federal Government. Nanny Fed didn't contribute one iota of anything to me. Never helped me in any way -- nor did I ever seek Nanny's help. This doesn't mean that I didn't get a helping hand at times during my youth from private sources -- but even then I repaid every cent I owed.
I am very well acquainted, sir, with such "family values" as personal responsibility, independence, self-reliance, self-respect, determination, strong work ethics, thriftiness, etc. -- values which far, far too few liberals never had the privilege of meeting -- but will pretend they are very acquainted with during the '08 presidential campaign, as they go around the country thumpin' on their newly bought or just recently dusted bibles.
So, no, I'm not envious of the CEOs making the big bucks -- nor do I begrudge them. But if some little guy gets worked up over the idea, then his way of dealing with the issue is to work his way to the top, go to school, learn, study, etc. The solution is not whining and complaining and feeling sorry for self because the dastardly capitalistic system has claimed another victim.
And for those who finally get it, and put in the time, effort and study to get ahead, I would prefer that it be not at my expense -- not with dollars for which I worked hard. Whenever I decide to give a helping hand to someone, it will on the basis my pesonal decision, to people to whom I choose based on circumstances of which I am personally familiar-- not the government doing the choosing for me with my money.
I trust, meathead, you understand my "family values" perfectly now?
Boxcar
Secretariat
03-13-2005, 07:02 AM
Of course, the disparity grows larger in "real dollars", meathead.
You don't get diddly squat, Mr. Pinhead. I was not born with any silver spoons in my mouth. I made my money the good ol' fashioned way -- lots of work, then more work, then more on top of that. In addition to all that, I saved, saved some more, and continue to save. I managed to keep myself virtually debt-free most of my adult life. I've never known what it is to pay a mortgage of either of my two homes. And I make no apologies to anyone for being successful in what I have put my mind to -- which since the early '70s was beating the races.
I trust, meathead, you understand my "family values" perfectly now?
Boxcar
As I said earlier I understand your family values all too well... your way or the highway...a true Christian. Good for you, you did well, so screw everyone else. Screw the guy who worked 20 years with a BS in Computer Science who paid off his home and has been unable to find a job even locally for the last 5 years. You did it, why can't everyone else? It doesn't matter that the seperation between the CEO and the base worker keeps growing. Hell that's more of a challenge for those lazy duffs to get off their butt and work harder. Why even if they wanted to work, they should show the initiative and move to China or india where they could get a job in their field. And what's wrong with giving the CEO more money? After all he worked for it. Just look at the HP head? Why shouldn't she get a 20 mil golden parachute despite a miserable performance for her shareholders? Why shouldn't we build more and more Walmarts and use cheap China labor? who cares if the trade deficit grows larger, and there are fewer and fewer good jobs? I got mine, right. Those lazy duffs. If they'd just get off their butts MickeyD's is hiring. And if that isn't good enough for them, let them get two jobs. Heck, I'll bet you did it in college to get by. What the heck. If they'd just show a little spit and grit, a little ingenuity I'll bet they could make almost 11.00 an hour. And benefits? Well, who cares? just take a one a day vitamin that's all you need. And those who can't make it? Screw them, they're a drain on the system. Send them over to Iraq for cannon fodder. In fact, the military is hiring, why don't these lazy lugs join up and avenge 911 in Iraq? The CEO's should actually be getting more. i don't begrudge them. The greed as epitomized in the Tyco, Enron and MCI scandal are over. And the fact that the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation doesn't mean squat. Those CEO's work a lot harder than they did in the 70's. They deserve more. And if the division in wealth grows larger...so what...I got mine.
That's about all I could take. Box, I wanted to know what it felt like to be you for a minute. Now if you'll excuse me, I must throw up.
Sec,
you shouldn't pick on Boxcar he is just following the neocon guidelines. "Screw the little guy and praise the Lord when do I get my next dividend check?" ;)
As opposed to the left's MO of keeping people as victims and having them praise Teddy Kennedy when they get their next welfare check!
boxcar
03-13-2005, 01:24 PM
Secretariat wrote:
As I said earlier I understand your family values all too well... your way or the highway...a true Christian. Good for you, you did well, so screw everyone else.
Yes, "my way" has worked for me, as it has for countless others who have met challenges head on, overcome obstacles and have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. What this means is that this kind of intestnal fortitude, this kind of character, this kind of self-determination, this kind of self-discipline actaully WORKS!
This is a tough world in which we live, and If the "jungle" of Capitalism in this nation is too tough for a whining ninny like you, then may I suggest you move on to softer, gentler, kinder socialistic climes like France, Germany, Netherlands, etc.? For I don't suppose there is a crying towel large enough to soak up your crock tears in this country!
That's about all I could take. Box, I wanted to know what it felt like to be you for a minute. Now if you'll excuse me, I must throw up.
And when you do, you spineless coward, do us all a favor, will ya? Barf it all up in a barf bag strapped tightly to your head. Suicide by your own barf is right up to your moral speed and would be in sync with your lack of character.
Boxcar
From Boxcar
What this means is that this kind of intestnal fortitude, this kind of character, this kind of self-determination, this kind of self-discipline actaully WORKS!
Oh Boxcar what a man. You will forever be my hero.
Hate to upset your dream Tom but,
Most welfare recipients are red state rednecks. The red states also hold records for most divorces and most illegitimate births. This has to do with some sort of family values i would suppose. :D
Kreed
03-13-2005, 01:45 PM
Boxcar a hero? He's got no brain clout & of course he's got self-discipline (except for his addiction to long posts-quotes). Discipline is easy when
you got no real urges left.
boxcar
03-13-2005, 01:53 PM
LJB wrote:
What this means is that this kind of intestnal fortitude, this kind of character, this kind of self-determination, this kind of self-discipline actaully WORKS!
Oh Boxcar what a man. You will forever be my hero.
I take it that you find something inherently immoral with virtues such as fortitude, determination, self-discipline, self-sufficiency, etc.?
But excuse me...why do I even ask? Of course you do. This is why you're a Liberal.
Boxcar
boxcar
03-13-2005, 02:04 PM
Kreed latest brainfart:
Discipline is easy when you got no real urges left.
Yeah...and why exert yourself with exercising discipline when the going is tough? In your fragile physiological condition and equally as tenuous psychological condition , you might snap something(s) that would leave you urgeless for the rest of your life.
Boxcar
LJB wrote:
What this means is that this kind of intestnal fortitude, this kind of character, this kind of self-determination, this kind of self-discipline actaully WORKS!
Oh Boxcar what a man. You will forever be my hero.
I take it that you find something inherently immoral with virtues such as fortitude, determination, self-discipline, self-sufficiency, etc.?
But excuse me...why do I even ask? Of course you do. This is why you're a Liberal.
Boxcar
Apparently the sarcasm in my reply went right over your head. But why shouldn't it you are a narrowminded neocon
boxcar
03-13-2005, 06:55 PM
ljb wrote:
Apparently the sarcasm in my reply went right over your head. But why shouldn't it you are a narrowminded neocon.
Okay...so, if you don't find anything inherently wrong with the virtues I listed, why the sarcasm?
Boxcar
The sarcasm was pointed at your sanctimonious tone. Many on this board have made it in life using those virtues. You make like liberals don't work or have similiar virtues. I disagree with your opinion.
boxcar
03-13-2005, 07:42 PM
ljb wrote:
The sarcasm was pointed at your sanctimonious tone. Many on this board have made it in life using those virtues. You make like liberals don't work or have similiar virtues. I disagree with your opinion.
Yeah...sure. Liberals may have "similar virtues", but by all their Nanny Fed, free handouts mentality, pro-cradle-to-grave entitlements and anti-capitalistic rhetoric, one is forced to conclude that most Libs pay only mere lip service to such values.
The Liberals' Big Governement, Big Spending, Socialistic rhetoric doesn't match to whatever those "similar values" may be. Whatever else Liberalism is, it most certainly does not promote or encourage such values as personal responsibility, personal independence, industriousness, self-control, self-reliance, self-sufficiency or self-respect. What it does foster and encourage, however, is perpetual dependence on the state to meet all the individual's needs -- from cradle to grave. And it does this by penalizing the hard working, tax-paying, law abiding citizens through income redistribution -- by taking from those who have earned their way, and by giving to those who haven't. This is Socialism's way of trying to "level the playing field" -- of putting everyone on an equal economic plane -- of trying to replace disparity with parity as much as possible.
So, pardon me for disageeing strongly with your rather sanctimonious opinion about what values or virtues liberals hold dear.
Boxcar
Boxcar,
We are currently being controlled by a "conservative" government. White house and both legislative branches. Based on the deficit (excluding Iraq) we have the biggest government in our lifetime. The difference is this government gives all the handouts and such to Big Business. Big business does not adhere to those virtues as much as either you or me. Unless you are multi millionaire you are being duped by those in control.
So pardon me for pointing out your mis-understanding of who has real values and virtues.
We are "controlled" by a republican governemtn because the democrates have allowed their party to be taken over by out-of-touch wackos. And putting Howard Dean in charge of the DNC only underlines the absurdity of the party - this guy was outright rejected by the voters and ended up a cartoon character whose scream is still heard daily on talk radio and other shows. The republicans are winning because they are championing the values of the majority.
Tom said
"The republicans are winning because they are championing the values of the majority. "
You know it Tom, especially there imigration policys!
boxcar
03-13-2005, 09:55 PM
ljb wrote:
Boxcar,
We are currently being controlled by a "conservative" government. White house and both legislative branches.
We need take this no further. Coming right out the chute, you betray your own gross "misunderstanding" of the type of government we have. We have Republicans "controlling" the government. We have far too many Republicans behaving more and more like Liberals. We have all too many unprincipled Republicans who want their cake while eating it on the fence they're straddling -- trying to be all things to all people.
So pardon me for pointing out your mis-understanding of who has real values and virtues.
You are the one doing all the misunderstanding. True conservatives do indeed cherish the values and virtues I've mentioned. (The emphasis, incidentially, is on the term "true".)
Boxcar
Well it was good while it lasted Boxcar but, you have again reverted to your "*we are the only good people in the world and the rest have no virtues because they don't agree with our teachings."
*WE--- true conservatives.
hurrikane
03-14-2005, 12:52 PM
Box,
Two workers. One makes 20K a year. One makes a 100K a year. Both get 4% raises over five years.
20K worker
Year 1 =20,000
Year 2 = 20,800
Year 3=21,632
Year 4=22,497
Year 5 =23.397
An increase of 3,397 real dollars over 5 years
100K worker
Year 1=100,000
Year 2=104,000
Year 3=108,160
Year 4=112,486
Year 5=116,986
An increase of 16,986 real dollars over 5 years.
A difference of 13,589 over 5 years in real dollars between the workers.
as a business owner I can tell you the truth as I know it in business.
People get paid/raises in realation to their value. The fact is most minimum wage workers don't stay in a job long enough to get a raise. Not because of money but because of the nature of the job. They are not usually fun or exciting jobs, not very technical, and many times are done by unskilled workers or the work is not that relevant to the business but just a 'convienience' to have.
If you keep raising the minimum wage the jobs will go away, be dispersed across the people with other values and pay them a little more, or cut benifits such as health insurance etc and hire contractors to cut costs.
And for retail or most any business that incurs a wage/tax increase. Anyone that thinks a business pays for a wage or tax increase is just ignorant of business practices. The customer always pays for this. Usually getting pennies on their dollar to cover the increase.
boxcar
03-14-2005, 01:32 PM
hurrikane wrote:
as a business owner I can tell you the truth as I know it in business.
People get paid/raises in realation to their value.
Exactly right! This is is what I stated earlier, except in different terms. Today the majority of companies (especially the larger ones) do performance evaluations, using various criteria for different positions in order to determine the rate of increase for each employee. The days of "automatic" pay raises are all but gone. The business world is shrinking, and has become far too competitive for companies to give these kinds of arbitrary increases.
If you keep raising the minimum wage the jobs will go away, be dispersed across the people with other values and pay them a little more, or cut benifits such as health insurance etc and hire contractors to cut costs.
And for retail or most any business that incurs a wage/tax increase. Anyone that thinks a business pays for a wage or tax increase is just ignorant of business practices. The customer always pays for this. Usually getting pennies on their dollar to cover the increase.
Right on the mark again. In fact, I'll expand on this idea and digress for a moment: Most people don't have the foggiest idea that corporations really don't pay any taxes because businesses look at taxes as a business expense, and embed that expense, and all tax-related adminsitrative expenses, into the cost of their goods or services. This is one of the most pernicious and damaging side effects of the income tax system, and why America has become increasingly less competitive in the world market place over the last several decades. (It's also one of the best kept secrets, especially by our elected officials.) The consumer is at the rock bottom of the tax chain; therefore, it's the consumer who bears all the tax burdens in this country.
Good post, hurrikane.
Boxcar
Secretariat
03-14-2005, 10:31 PM
as a business owner I can tell you the truth as I know it in business.
People get paid/raises in realation to their value. The fact is most minimum wage workers don't stay in a job long enough to get a raise. Not because of money but because of the nature of the job. They are not usually fun or exciting jobs, not very technical, and many times are done by unskilled workers or the work is not that relevant to the business but just a 'convienience' to have.
If you keep raising the minimum wage the jobs will go away, be dispersed across the people with other values and pay them a little more, or cut benifits such as health insurance etc and hire contractors to cut costs.
And for retail or most any business that incurs a wage/tax increase. Anyone that thinks a business pays for a wage or tax increase is just ignorant of business practices. The customer always pays for this. Usually getting pennies on their dollar to cover the increase.
People get paid in relation to their value. I couldn't disagree more. Why would someone in China be paid pennies for the same work someone does in NC for minimum wage? Why would a CEO get paid millions for showing an unprofitable ledger for the year? It is a myth to beleive that all jobs are paid for thier value. Your argument does not account for government jobs as well where no one is paid for their value.
Raises are handled mostly via a percentage scale which causes the problem. in fact a 4% increase to a minimum wage worker in comparision with a management worker is a loss to the minimum wage worker in terms of real dollars. As this continues the seperation widens over years the division expands in real dollar differences creating larger and larger class divisions.
By your description of minimum wage jobs they sound like they're tedious unfulfilling jobs. It would seem someone should be paid more to do work that brings no pleasure. Your example that raising minimum wage jobs is an argument made before. Yet statistical studies have shown from previous minimum wage increases that minimum wage jobs were not lost. This is anecdotal argument to prevent minimum wage increases not born out by facts.
Yes, the customer pays for it, but the customer also has the option to purchase or not to purchase. A minimum wage worker does not have the option to pay the rent or not pay the rent.
boxcar
03-14-2005, 11:44 PM
Secretariat wrote:
People get paid in relation to their value. I couldn't disagree more. Why would someone in China be paid pennies for the same work someone does in NC for minimum wage?
Could it have something to do with the respective labor markets? Why does a a salaried secretary in NYC earn let's say...$500. week, while her counterpart in Jacksonville, FL, performing essentially the same duties, earns half that?
You certainly don't have to go to China to find large disparaties in wages, rents, housing costs, food costs, gasoline costs, etc. There is quite a bit if disparity right here in our own backyard, and it all has to do with what each market will bear.
Why would a CEO get paid millions for showing an unprofitable ledger for the year?
You're sounding like a broken record by repeatedly citing exceptions and anomalies as though such practices are common or rampant.
It is a myth to believe that all jobs are paid for thier value.
This is true. Jobs are not paid. However, people who fill those positions and perform those jobs are usually paid about what they're worth. The reason I say this is because sharp employers are hesitant to pay an employee his or her "full value" out of genuine concern that such a practice may well stifle productivity and ambition and encourage complacency. The better and smarter practice, from a business standpoint, is to keep the carrot dangling out there. Keep employees wanting more so that they'll continue to work hard to achieve their personal goals, etc.
Secondly, if someone really feels that they're being seriously underpaid, they, too, like the consumer you mention later on in this post, have the option of choosing to not work at that company, or even choosing to actively seek work elswhere where the compensation is more to their liking.
Somehow, though, I don't think this is very big problem. Haven't read or heard lately of massive sit-ins or picketing, etc. due to poor wages.
Your argument does not account for government jobs as well where no one is paid for their value.
From what contact, I've had with government employees at all levels (save for fiefighters, police officers and the such), it's my opinion that many, if not most, excel at milking the clock and warming seats, and and are grossly overpaid for what little they achieve. But even so...once again, no mass demonstations by these kinds of employees either. And if they're so grossly underpaid, how come their savior (their union) doesn't run to their rescue?
Raises are handled mostly via a percentage scale which causes the problem. in fact a 4% increase to a minimum wage worker in comparision with a management worker is a loss to the minimum wage worker in terms of real dollars.
Hmm...so let's see: A 40-hour a week employee making $10. per hr (to use a round fig) receives a 4% increase, and he's better off without the raise? He'd somehow be better off of not receiving the $16. gross dollars (minus his taxes, of course)?. Let's say that after SS and withholding, he'd net a $14.00 per week [/b]increase in actual dollars[/b]. Please explain to me how this increase in real dollars represents a loss of "real dollars" to this worker?
As this continues the seperation widens over years the division expands in real dollar differences creating larger and larger class divisions.
Yup, that's the way it works. If if worked differentlly, we'd all be paying $10. for a loaf of bread today, and next year $12. etc..
By your description of minimum wage jobs they sound like they're tedious unfulfilling jobs. It would seem someone should get paid in relation to their value. I couldn't disagree more. As this continues the seperation widens over years the division expands in real dollar differences creating larger and larger class divisions. By your description of minimum wage jobs they sound like they're tedious unfulfilling jobs. It would seem someone should be paid more to do work that brings no pleasure.
Nope. If people find their job unfulfilling, unrewarding, unsatisfying, etc., then this is their incentive to leave and better themselves. There is no way people should be over-compensated for relatively low-skill work. Such a practice would remove all incentive for self-improvement, self-betterment, etc
A minimum wage worker does not have the option to pay the rent or not pay the rent.
But in this country, they almost always have the option to improve themselves, to better their lot in life. This opportunity is what makes this country so great.
Boxcar
hurrikane
03-15-2005, 12:07 PM
People get paid in relation to their value. I couldn't disagree more. Why would someone in China be paid pennies for the same work someone does in NC for minimum wage? Why would a CEO get paid millions for showing an unprofitable ledger for the year? It is a myth to beleive that all jobs are paid for thier value. Your argument does not account for government jobs as well where no one is paid for their value.
Gee, you think it has anything to do with regulations and cost of living? Why is the minimum wage in NYC the same as Barstow CA? It makes no sense. And when did China adopt the American capitalist system and the socialist minimun wage act?
As for the Gov...I contract with the Gov. 50% of the workers are dead weight. If it weren't for contractors this country couldn't run. Why. Because the friggin regs won't let you fire anyone for non-preformance. If they got rid of the dead weight there would be enough money to pay the people that do work better than private sector pays. Gee, imagine the type of minds we could get running the place then.
Raises are handled mostly via a percentage scale which causes the problem. in fact a 4% increase to a minimum wage worker in comparision with a management worker is a loss to the minimum wage worker in terms of real dollars. As this continues the seperation widens over years the division expands in real dollar differences creating larger and larger class divisions.
I started the same place as everyone else. No favors for me and in fact I was turned away from jobs I wanted in the 70s because of quotas. I got where I am because I work harder and smarter than the next guy. And people who got farther than me worked harder and smarter than me. My only response to the suggestion that I carry some lazy piss up the ladder with me is..Kiss my Ass!
Yes, the customer pays for it, but the customer also has the option to purchase or not to purchase. A minimum wage worker does not have the option to pay the rent or not pay the rent.
The minimum wage earner does have the option to work somewhere else. Or even start their own company. All they have to do now is get their ass up at the crack of dawn, work like hell until the middle of the nigth, not have a guarentee of getting paid at the end of the week for just showing up, and pay their own way in the hopes they can reap some reward before some politician gets his hands in your pocket.
Gee..the american dream. remember..it really wasn't about a free ride at all was it.
Secretariat
03-15-2005, 07:47 PM
It is no surprise but that I disagree with both Box and Hurrikane. I am also a business owner and have a small group of people who I pay in real dollar raises.
I'm not going to waste time rehasing my disagreements with almost every point made by you.
I'll just make two points:
IF WE DEALT WITH A FIXED DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND WORKERS WE’D SEE FRONTLINE WORKERS AND MANAGEMENT MORE CLOSELY CONNECTED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A FRONTLINE WORKER GETS 10.00 AND MANAGEMENT MAKES 50.00/hr a 4% RAISE AMOUNTS TO A 10.40 WAGE FOR THE ONE WORKER AND A 52.00 WAGE FOR THE MANAGEMENT WORKER. A 1.60 ADVANTAGE TO THE MANAGEMENT WORKER IN REALDOLLARS WHICH GROWNS EXPONETIALLY. IF ONE USES REAL DOLLAR WAGES INSTEAD, WE STILL ALLOT THE SAME BASIC COMPANY FUNDS AND KEEP THE DISPARITY BETWEEN FRONTLINE WORKER AND MAMANGEMENT WORKER CONSISTENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF BOTH WORKER AND MANAGEMENT RECEIVED A REAL DOLLAR RAISE RATHER THAN A PERCENTAGE RAISE YOUR FRONTLINE WORKERS WOULD BE MUCH MORE LOYAL AND THE DIVISION BETWEEN MANAGEMNT AND FRONTLINE IS MAINTAINED.
SO THE 10.00 WORKER NOW MAKES 11.00 AND THE MANAGEMENT WORKER MAKES 51.00. THERE IS STILL A 40 DOLLAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, AND BOTH HAVE GOTTEN EQUAL RAISES IN TERMS OF REAL DOLLARS.
THIS IS MUCH MORE EQUITABLE THAN THE PERCENTAGE RAISE WHICH CREATES A COMPOUNDING EFFECT FOR THE HIGHER PAID MANAGEMENT WORKER.
Your other issues are easlily refuted, but I felt posting this article on the minimum wage is more useful than dealing point by point in a giant thread.
A GOOD DAY'S WORK DESERVES A GOOD DAY'S PAY
by P. A. O., Norcross, Georgia
I can't believe the richest nation on the planet can't afford to pay its citizens a living wage. Wait! We could afford it! But instead, for the last 35 years – while athlete, celebrity, and CEO salaries have skyrocketed – the buying power of the minimum wage has been sadly, continuously eroded.
When President Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, one wage earner working full time at minimum wage could support a family. Today, if you work 40 hours a week, every week of the year, minimum wage will bring you $10,712. How is it possible that you can work fulltime and still be on the borderline of poverty (which is about $9,000 for an individual and $18,400 for a family of 4)? Imagine trying to house and feed and transport a family on that kind of annual income. Now, imagine what an extra $50 or $100 a month in energy costs does to a budget that small.
The gap between Median Household Income and Minimum Wage has been increasing since 1980
Source: U. S. Dept. of Labor
We haven't raised the minimum wage since 1996. The chances of us doing it this year, with Republicans in charge of everything, are slim to none. Then again, a true compassionate conservative would know that every extra dime you put into the pockets of the 8-to-10 million workers who would benefit from this increase would go right back into circulation. It won't take a minute for minimum wage earners to spend that extra $28 a week. Sure, this initiative might take a penny or two from the annual shareholder dividend. But those pennies will go right back into the economy, which could actually strengthen the recovery. That's why, in my opinion, raising the minimum wage now is absolutely the right thing to do.
Unions also are detrimental to effective business. Yesteraday, we had to, by law, send notices to the union, local offical, state officials, etc. that we are going to lay off a substantial number of people in 60 days. The laws is you have to do this if you lay of 20% or more of your work force. We are laying off somewhere between 60-70% of our employees! Almost all of our curent contracts expire between May and June and the only new project we have doesn't go into prodcution until July 2007.
Thanks to the union, don't get to keep the good people, the dedicacted people, those that care and would be assets. We have to keep the most senior people, many of which are not worth a dollar an hour. Firing bad apples in a union shop is not easy-they can run you ragged with grievences, arbitration, etc.
hurrikane
03-16-2005, 03:04 PM
the point is Sec, if you want to pay top dollar for top performers you have that right. I do. I dont' have one minimum wager earner working for me. I wouldn't pay minimum wage. If the work you perform is only worth that then I dont' want you.
I use to have a company until 1995 that produced a product that was very high tech. But didn't take high tech skills to produce. I paid my people very well, there was a line of people waiting to work for me. I could pick the cream of the crop. that was smart business on my part. So, what happened.
Companies started hiring prisoners from penetaries and foreigners at minimum wage or less to produce the product. OR take it to the Phillipines for 25cent an hour. Less quality and less perfermance but a substantially less costs.
I could have cut pays and competed. Wasn't worth it. If you raise the prices somewhere someone will do the work for less Or make a machine that will. Then these people won't be able to get a job at all.
The bottom line is you have the right to pay your people whatever you want. And I should have the right to pay my people what I want..without being judged by you.
This reply is to Tom,
I don't know if he will see it or not, I may be number one on his ignore list. :D
But, Tom you have pointed out a few negative things about unions. I spent most of my career fighting things like this. I hated it when the union made me keep a worthless employee on the job. And so did many of the employee's union member co-workers. The union's claim was always something like we have to protect all members or we will not be protecting any of them. One time I built a strong enough case against a coke head to get him fired. He was gone until the next contract came up and management made a deal to let him back in. I don't know what management got but I got this pain in the ass back. Only saving grace was the mandatory drug testing he had to agree to. He only lasted a couple weeks and tested positive for cocaine. He was then let go and did not return.
Now having said that, I can also give an example where unions have done good in a rather suprising way.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.