So you're saying that workers don't deserve to share the profits with the owner(s). I say they agreed to work for the company and so they should share in the profits. If the business is not profitable they have they're agreed-upon base wage. But if profitable then the workers should share in those profits. After all, it is their labor together with the planning of the owner that built the business and made it profitable.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
A higher minimum wage will hurt some workers
- Thread starter Jason76
- Start date
Werbung:
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
A year or so ago I read about a small company of a few dozen people that did that. I forgot the name of the company, but the employees were highly enthusiastic and productive. The company grew much faster than it would otherwise. The employees got a rather healthy bonus at the end of the year.
No. They agreed to a rate of pay comeasurate with their skillset. They might have considered negottating a percentage of the profits instead but that is unusual as they want reliable income.
Labor risks nothing. Any reward is a gift from management.
Bonuses are effective motivators if managed.
Yes, I know that. But I am saying that this all needs to change. We are seeing the results of capitalism in enormous income and wealth inequality, stagnation of middle class incomes while we have incomes of the top 1% increasing at a rate of 20-50%, and a collapse of leadership of the U.S. in many different areas. The greed is out of control and needs to be reined in if we are to avoid a total failure of U.S. economy, society, and law and order.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Cali raised its min wage, republicans said it would destory evrything..and instead it has large GDP growth, low Unemployment, and budget Surpluses now, ( they also raised taxes that they said would kill jobs) Minnesota where I am did the same, raised taxes, raised min wage...we have Basically Full Employment ( its the 3% range I believe)
If the Min wage form the 60-70s even just held with inflation it would be above the 15 mark, when adding in worker productivity gains it would be over 20.
WalMart pays shit wages, then has been found to actively push its workers to get on government programs to get buy,, You guys bitch about Food Stamps, but yet Wal Mart not only thives by having its workers get them, but then also having them spent at the Store where they profit. YOu guys want less goverment...then force the free market to pay its workers a living wage, and you will see a big drop in "hand outs"
Why is it when the workers need a raise, we cry about how the cost will go up for products...But no ones gives a shit if the CEO gets a 10 Million just to leave after screwing up...NO one says the New CEO pay will raise prices of a Big Max X...because the rich can do what ever they want, screw over everyone...while Republicans blame the poor workers for everything.
I Run a store and my paycheck is bases on sales and Commissions...and I would kill for the MIn wage to be 15 because I would be able to sell so much more product. SO I get a Nice Raise as well even though I make nothing close to MIN wage.
If the Min wage form the 60-70s even just held with inflation it would be above the 15 mark, when adding in worker productivity gains it would be over 20.
WalMart pays shit wages, then has been found to actively push its workers to get on government programs to get buy,, You guys bitch about Food Stamps, but yet Wal Mart not only thives by having its workers get them, but then also having them spent at the Store where they profit. YOu guys want less goverment...then force the free market to pay its workers a living wage, and you will see a big drop in "hand outs"
Why is it when the workers need a raise, we cry about how the cost will go up for products...But no ones gives a shit if the CEO gets a 10 Million just to leave after screwing up...NO one says the New CEO pay will raise prices of a Big Max X...because the rich can do what ever they want, screw over everyone...while Republicans blame the poor workers for everything.
I Run a store and my paycheck is bases on sales and Commissions...and I would kill for the MIn wage to be 15 because I would be able to sell so much more product. SO I get a Nice Raise as well even though I make nothing close to MIN wage.
Did it ever occur to you that the 85 billion a month BO has been giving wall street for 7 years may explain why the so called income inequality has spiked ?
Capitalism is not the problem, government injecting itself into business is.
Say what you will about the GOP but only the l eft has fed the 1% a trillion a year.
No. Has it ever occurred to you to investigate changes in CEO pay? - http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014
The government injects itself into business to 1. serve business (witness Citizens United) and 2. to save capitalism from itself (witness the bank bailout that led to those banks now being 30% bigger than they were then). Your "cause/effect" theory is bogus. It's an old canard the right dredges up from time to time.
"Left"??? Government??? The only "left" I know of in government have all been opposing and resisting everything that led to and allowed that. You sound desperate for something to cling to.
The argument made is that minimum wage is really welfare to corporate America. This is nonsense. Welfare and other government programs are aid for people. The base of that argument lies in the belief that wages and economic factors should be determined by social issues, rather than the market....that concept never works.
Slow down....28 million workers DO NOT earn minimum wage. The Bureau of Labor statistics (The data charts begin on page 4) puts the total number at 2.9 million. It further breaks it down by age. So if you look at those age 25 and over making minimum wage (people probably less likely to live at home or be in school), you are left with 1.5 million workers.
If the labor force is 156 million, then we are talking about roughly 1% of the workforce.
I was going to immediately ask if this included Social Security and Medicare, but was pleasantly surprised when the article addressed that the 49% figure does include those. It notes this figure drops to 35% when those are removed. Still a higher number than I would like to see, but what is the path out of this? I would argue education.
Look again at the BLS charts on minimum wage workers. Page 9 breaks out education levels for all minimum wage workers in the country. Take a look at the sharp declines from "High School" to "Associate Degree" or "Occupational Program." This idea that we all have to get 4 year degrees is absurd. I think there should be a major emphasis placed on job training programs as well as technical certification programs. College is not for everyone, but the idea that college is the only way out of poverty is absurd. Vocational programs, dual credit programs to speed qualified students up in the process, and technical certification programs should get much more support.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...its-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts
“Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That's according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)”
But again we include Social Security and Medicare. I am prepared to say that people that paid into social security their entire lives wouldn't view it as an entitlement. When they are removed, the article indicates the figure shrinks to 28% or so. I'd be interested in that break down. I would wager it tells a different story.
Well are we suddenly talking about "low pay" or are we talking about "minimum wage"? They are drastically different things. Increasing the minimum wage is not going to solve "low pay" problems. I'll agree that the perception of welfare queens is overblown (but not unfounded).
If a business owner cannot pay a wage that an outside, uninvolved party deems appropriate they should "give up"? How about you stay out of it and let the market run its course. If a business owner cannot find labor willing to work at a rate he is willing to pay they will pay more or give up. If labor is available at the price a business is willing to pay clearly the market can bear it.
The alternative is right in front of us....get out of its way. Let the inefficient parts of the market destroy itself, there is nothing more inherently capitalistic.
"Government injects itself into business to save capitalism from itself.....this statement makes exactly no sense. Capitalism embraces market destruction. Capitalism would not have saved the banks. Good comes from turmoil. If you refuse to allow turmoil, you prevent the process from actually working.
The idea that the bank bailout was needed because of a failure of capitalism is absurd. The failure of capitalism was bailing them out in the first place.
The only argument along these lines that I know of is the argument that welfare for minimum wage workers is a subsidy for business since it allows them to continue to pay an inadequate wage and the taxpayer is subsidizing a living income for those working people.
We already have college educated people working at Starbucks and McDonalds because they cannot find suitable work. This is new in the last 15 or so years. More education won't help them or any other people who are unemployed or who work for minimum wage.
Manufacturing industry has left the U.S. and abandoned U.S. workers, leaving them "high and dry". Jobs are not coming back. It's going to be up to the rest of us to create new jobs. And we have plenty waiting to be created in alternative energy and infrastructure. A huge national effort to advance these two as Bernie Sanders advocates would be the way.
Mostly, those who call Social Security an "entitlement" are those who want it ended altogether. It's part of their program of subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on it.
Oh, but it always has and will today. When a minimum wage worker earning $7.25/hr is working along side a worker earning $9.50/hr, and the minimum wage is raised to $10.50, that worker who earns $9.50 will get bumped up by his employer to something higher than the new minimum, maybe $11.75 or more. And those earning $11/hr will get bumped up. This "trickle-up" effect happens for about 1/3 of the workforce before it tapers off.
Think it through. Imagine what would happen if the minimum wage had been tied to the CPI in 1968. The minimum wage would be about $10/hr today. So what would happen to a business that needs workers earning $7.25 - $8.50 or so per hour to survive and profit? That businessman wouldn't be able to make that business work and it wouldn't exist, that's what. How about you use your head?
huh? I'll bet labor would be available at $5/hr today if it were allowed. But it's government's job to disallow it by setting a minimum wage.
Sounds like the old textbook idealism of "let the market regulate itself." Left to itself the "market" would impoverish you and me and everyone else while piling the money in the hands of the richest.
Does the name "Greece" mean anything to you?
What is more capitalistic than the 6 biggest banks and financial institutions? And they threatened to take down the entire economy if nothing was done. You "pure market capitalism" advocates are idealists much more than you are realists.
Werbung:
Pointing back to statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics we find that the latest data shows there are 273,000 workers with a Bachelors or higher working at or below minimum wage. In a workforce of roughly 156 million this means that something like 0.00175% of the workforce is in the situation you describe. This is hardly a pressing issue.
If we have "plenty" just waiting to be created, why haven't they been created? If you have to rely on the government to force these jobs into existence that hardly sounds like a good solution. Government has no business picking winners and losers.
I would be thrilled to opt out of Social Security if given the option.
In other words, everyone will be mandated higher wages from those that do not have to pay them.... If you want to earn more money, make yourself more valuable. Let's face it, unskilled labor is not that valuable. It is basic supply and demand. There is a lot of supply of unskilled labor and limited demand - therefore low wages.
The solution is not a new mandate to make unskilled labor even more artificially expensive. The solution is to learn a skill that makes your labor more valuable.
