Thank you for proving my point. AND......centralizing wages at the top is also bad for the overall economy. Look at what just happened during the pandemic. We put money in the hands of those who will spend it, and the economy grows. Centralizing income and wealth into fewer and fewer hands is bad for the economy. Thats such a simple concept to grasp they teach it in 7th grade econ classes. If you go to work everyday, their is no reason you should need government subsidies to survive. Is amazing that we as a society look down on the working man for "taking" government subsides, but never look at WHY that working man needs a subsidy. When in reality it is the employer who is using the government subsidies to augment their business. Then why are they using the government to subsidize their wages ?
I think the lower and middle class are in sort of a constant recession that has been with us since the 80s (or thereabouts). Just that people adapted and don't demand that our leaders fix it. I don't know what the future is going to be like. But if people become accustomed to earning a fair living wage, that's what will be the new normal. And it won't be as easy for politicians to neglect people who are not rich.
So isnt the real answer to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Why cant we lower profits ? Why is the guy who works for a living, but doesn't make enough to survive, somehow a leach on the government.......But the guy who pays him those low wages, and is using the government to subsidize his payroll, not a leech ?
I'm not sure if this statement falls under 'mixed terminology' or ignorance. Helpful definitions: Salary: a fixed amount paid not subject to recalculation based on hours worked, with exception to exempt or non-exempt categories as defined by the FDOL. Living Wage: Terminology that is used to describe an arbitrary amount that has no factual basis in support of the idea that people are not free to either increase their worth in the employment marketplace and that employers are responsible to support individuals lifestyles of their choice. Some follow up homework for extra credit: Please search the FDOL guidelines about the minimum amount that must be paid to satisfy labor laws regarding salaried positions, hours allowed under fixed salaries, and the categories that are exempt and non-exempt.
So you feel the government should be involved in deciding what is an acceptable profit, regardless of the percent of at risk investment, time invested, or a return on investment? Would it not be the individual's responsibility to improve their skill set to make themselves worth more in the marketplace? Who decides what that 'living wage' is? Would that not also become the Minimum Wage, which would still leave them at the bottom of the ladder and unable to fully support themselves if everyone else's wages increased proportionately?
If you think higher costs will not be passed on to the consumer then you are living in a fantasy world.
MARIA BARTIROMO: You’ve been around the block, seeing these cycles back and fourth. How does this supply chain crisis related to what you’ve seen in the past? Talk to us about the inflation story and how you assess these issues. ED RENSI: I first experienced this back during the 70s, up into the 80s when we had stagflation, where prices of fuel [were] going up like crazy. Transportation was limited. Distribution was limited. We had to raise prices. We had to address our opening and closing schedules in restaurants, modify the menus, and we’re going through it again. It’s been exacerbated clearly by COVID. But it’s also been impacted dramatically by the policy changes that President Biden made even before he was inaugurated, when he said he’s going to shut down oil, shut down the pipelines, move away from fossil fuel.
I disagree. I've seen plenty of people put out of work when the employer could no longer pay them. The amount that the CEO makes is not relevant at all since he is also out of work when the company fails to make a profit. When I made less than enough to eat, I left that job to those living with their parents and went to work somewhere else.
You are not understanding this thread. Right now the shoe is on the other foot. That guy who made "poor personal decisions" has the opportunity to make the right decision and take a job that pays a living wage.
Oh, I understand the thread perfectly. The guy who made "poor personal decisions" has ALWAYS had the opportunity to make the right decision and take a job that pay's a living wage. The problem lies with them continuing to make poor decisions which prevent them to improve, learn a skill and become an asset to an employer. Heck, I know a guy who started as a fry cook at McDonalds when he was 18. He now owns 3 franchises. He's still not a 40 year old flipping burgers as he made better decisions and made something of himself.
Of course. But the point is that the increase is more than 5%. Waaay more. And there doesn't appear to be any reason in sight for it will fall anywhere near the rate of inflation any time soon. I know here in Florida, for minimum wage workers, it's more than 20%. Most job offers I see in gas stations, fast food places, supermarkets... and similar, is typically 40% over minimum wage for an entry level position. Before the pandemic these places were offering just about minimum wage and... tough it out. Not anymore.
No. It should be the governments responsibility to not allow employers to use them to augment their wages. All due respect but you are making the assumption that I said all wages should increase. I am not saying that. Im saying that any wage lower than that which requires a government subsidy in any way should be raised. But also remember that the current minimum wage was set 12 years ago. 12 years ago when that was set, that wage did not allow for any government subsidies. And I believe that the federal minimum wage should have built in COL raises yearly. Every state calculates a living wage as part of the Dept of Labor. They do that to determine who gets food stamps, ADC, and other benefits. It could, and should be used as a minimum wage every year. Can you imagine if you didn't get a raise for 12 years ? How would you be living today ? All I am saying is that "profits" are increased by artificially stagnating wages via de-valuing labor. I am all for allowing investment to reap more reward than labor, but I am also saying t is not sustainable to continue to allow the investment to reap 99% of the reward, while socializing the costs. Their is truth in the old saying "socialize the risk and privatize the profit" as that is exactly what is happening now. Why does the dollar you spend at walmart get taxed at a higher rate than one you spend in the stock market ?
That is true in some cases. Yes, minimum wage was designed for for the singe person, but it is being used for the family now. In 2020, workers over the age of 25 were 52% of all minimum wage earners. The amount the CEO makes IS relevant if any of his workers receive government subsidies of any kind. Food stamps, rent assistance, prescription drug assistance. That by definition is corporate welfare
That's all you make for 120 hours per week?? Don't you ever sleep?? Sweet Jesus, I made $135,000 for a 40 hour week not including overtime. With overtime & penalties (voluntary of course) average another $70,000 per year which tips the scales of payment to over $205,000 yearly. Of course we are union so that does make a difference compared to our non-union brethren. As for $50 hourly to "flip burgers" if they can automate, then when don't they just do it; they are not in business to employ people, so what is stopping them from instituting it now and saving money? Don't tell me they feel sorry for these lowly "flippers".
No one "spends" dollars in the stock market. People invest dollars in the stock market. Investments are taxed less in order to spur investment. I do agree that cap gains should be considered as normal income when that is where you make most of your money (or set a limit). The politicians know this and openly admit it and then proceed to ignore any fixes. People like John Kerry should have to pay their fair share.
You are assuming that the automated equipment does not cost anything and will never break. Sometimes if cheaper to hire a high school kid at min wage than to buy an $80,000 robot and/or a robot technician to program it.
Well if they're not working at jobs where are they working? Did they all just become entrepreneurs or doctors
Interpreting what you have posted, that is addressed when people enter the workforce without any experience. The average age of a person getting their first job is 16. Some start at 14, others at 20 or older. The demographics of MW workers is under 25. It is a time span used to gain knowledge and experience. If the base wage increases, what happens to everybody that has worked and improved their skill set? They two should get a raise, or their labor is devalued. You cannot raise one group to the level you feel is just without also compensating those who have already achieved that level, and it ripples up. Less than 2% of the workforce make just MW. Why? Are you saying you believe that assistance programs didn't exist 12 years ago? That is not what FMW was for. It's a starting block, and plenty of people who did not take the opportunity to improve their position or could not, received assistance. Since the workforce that makes more than MW would have to receive a proportional COL raise in order to stay out of the devaluation of labor, that means raises are by law increased, regardless of the profitability of the business. There would be any number of business that had a bad year closing, and those people would be out of jobs. The ripple up is more than you considered, I think. The dollar that is spent at WalMart receives goods in return with (technically) no risk. Investing money in the stock market is 100% risk - you could walk away with nothing. Here is some reading matter for you, and numbers that may surprise you. Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2020 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics What is the Minimum Wage? - MinimumWage.com
Well, that's certainly a nice thing to imagine, but this brings up a topic I've been worrying about, and that is the inability of the economy to support everyone who is looking for a good job that pays well and provides a "life-work" balance. I'm talking about everyone who is ready, willing, and able to move up but can't. Due to no fault of their own, the system can't support them. It would result in a system that's too top-heavy. And, then, maybe, many of the low to moderately disabled folks would suddenly be able to compete for many of the jobs if things get too cushy.
Nothing you wrote here is of any relevance to what I said or to this thread. And what may appear to have relevance is false.
Common sense tells me if the automation were to break down (keep in mind most places have more then one "automation machine"), you bring in someone to fix it; not pay someone $15 an hour to cook meat, not when machines can do it. So it makes no sense to wave the threat of automation over the heads of the workers because they want a living wage with benefits and rights that some others currently enjoy in the workplace. When the time comes for automation it's going to happen whether you are paying them $1.25 or $25 an hour.
Your absolute disconnection with reality makes impossible to have any serious discussion with you. And even more so that you REFUSE to read the OP, because what you write has no relation to the topic described there.
