That's because somebody doing a good job an the executive level vs a bad job is significantly different in the impact it has on the entire company. It's not chopping wood.
Yet the ones that do a bad job still get huge severance packages. Sign me up for the job where I get $Texas even if I don't do a good job.
That's like saying that if the minimum wage is too high, and it hurts employers, we should just not pay anyone anything at all. and we'd all be wealthy
No, the amount that should be paid is the amount that an employer and an employee agree upon. Which is better, that an employer willing to pay $6 an hour not hire anybody while jobless people willing to work for $6 an hour continue to not find jobs, or that the employer actually hire those people for $6 an hour even though it is less than minimum wage?
That might be true if the power dynamic were the same on both sides of the table. But it's not. Generally speaking the employee needs a job more than an employer needs the employee. The business probably has 50 applicants for the job, while the applicant isn't entertaining 50 job offers.
So if I have a friend, lets call him "Bob", Bob and I are both the same age and from the same family. Bob can be my brother.
I finish high school, Bob sits at home playing video games. I stay with one job that starts at $8/hr and get promoted while Bob just moves job to job every 6 months after they realize he's a slacker.
Eventually after suffering through working extra hard to get promoted rather than fired in 6 months, I'm now starting to realize that Bob's way was wrong... after all he keeps moving from job to job all making $8/hr, but I've now been promoted up from $11/hr to lets say $15/hr.
Then this law passes and suddenly Bob and I make the same money..... Is this really "right" to you? Shouldn't my harder-than-bob's-work actually get me something tangible? Is it really fair to now watch Bob just get bumped to $15/hr like me despite the large difference in work ethics and education?
According to everything schooling and society has taught me, I should be doing much better than Bob yet he's right at my level! How is that possibly fair to me?
You have shown that hypothetical scenarios can be tailored to illustrate any point. The answer to your question is that your industriousness will continue to benefit you as you continue to climb up in your career, while Bob will still be stuck at minimum wage. So five years from now, when you are making $25 an hour, Bob will still be making $15. Does that seem fairer now?
Maybe fucktards who can't get an order of two big macs, fries and a happy meal don't deserve a living wage? That's just my guess.
Your compassion and empathy for your fellow man knows no bounds. Since they don't deserve enough to live on, why are we even tolerating their existence?
You might consider a third option. Reducing executive compensation.
That's the thing that needs to happen throughout the economy.
It's funny how top executive compensation doesn't seem to be subject to the same downward pressure that lower wages are subject to. I wonder why that is. Surely you could find someone to take those jobs for less money. Yet we somehow don't hear that argument.
Easy. Because his products are not priced for minimum wage makers. The poor guy who makes the Ferrari likely doesn't get paid an income which would allow him to buy one. Even by doubling his pay.
The profit margin on such goods is high. As such they will take option two from above an reduce their net revenue.
Sales will NOT remain flat.
Right, and spenders will not suddenly become lousy at seeking bargains. Which means my "little local shop" is going to get skull-fucked by the only type of company that can survive in this brave new world: mega-chains that can leverage their massive scales of economy to save a few cents on every bottle of shampoo they sell, and thus undersell my prices, and put me out of business.
I'm sure we'll all be very happy working at minimum wage for super-mega-giant-corp, but do you see that "more spending power" is simply going to result in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a handful of large corporate CEOs? Nobody else will be able to afford the employees, and the employees will take their hard-earned minimum wage dollars where those dollars will stretch the furthest.
Great for efficiency. Lousy for people.
Well, that's happening anyway regardless of the minimum wage. It seems your problem is more with modern American Capitalism, where the strong eat the weak and low prices are all that matters, than with a hike in the minimum wage.
If I'm running a business, and my payroll increases 30% while sales remain flat, I have two options: 1) slow or stop hiring, cut staff, or even go out of business; 2) raise prices to reflect the increase in wage expenses;
I don't see how either of those outcomes is very good for poor people struggling to get by on $15 an hour, even though we can console ourselves that we've "done something" to help them. Now, I am, admittedly, not an economist - perhaps it will work, or at least, it will help. But I really have sincere doubts that this is going to do much to really change the dynamic at the low end of the economic spectrum. I think it will largely end up being a feel-good measure that well-off, well-meaning people can use to congratulate themselves about, while doing nothing to change the fundamental reality of low wages and poverty.
The example you give only applies to a subset of businesses. Most will not have to go out of business because they have to pay people at least $15 an hour. A few little mom and pop's maybe. But Walmart is not making that calculation, nor is Target or Costco. They can easily absorb the increase in labor costs, and their profit will go from ridiculous to merely astounding. Besides, people's wages are companies revenue. Studies have shown that increasing the minimum wage can stimulate the economy by enabling people to spend more. This is most effective at the bottom of the income range because those people will spend the increase rather than saving it. So increasing labor costs is not the only dynamic at play.
I agree that this will not solve poverty or income inequality. But it's a step in the right direction. Our economy is supposedly 70% consumer-driven. It makes sense then that increasing the buying power among those most likely to use it would have an overall positive effect.
(While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.)
Like anyone is making that calculation. If you don't bill your hours no one can say whether you have increased the company's revenue by your salary. I kept the email servers running all year last year. Tell me how much I increased the company's revenue by doing that. Please show your work.
Money is noting more or less than unconsumed production, a store of wealth. When more of it is printed, it dilutes the store of wealth, making each unit worth less, which is theft. I love your use of the passive voice in stating that "money is created as needed" as if it were an act of nature. BS. Governments inflate the currency in order to pay back their debts with less value. Every smidgeon of inflation is the result of an affirmative decision of government. That is not to say that the money supply should be fixed, but that the money supply should be carefully monitored to prevent inflation, not to chase some ephemeral goal like "full employment". BTW, Andrew Jackson eliminated the national debt in 1835. I would vote to go back to sound fiscal practices like that in a heartbeat. What do you think it will look like when our house of cards comes crashing down? I am guessing it will be far worse than most expect.
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that inflation is the theft of value. But I also think that talking about the debt as though it will ever be paid back is the wrong approach. Because of the nature of our money, the debt will never be paid back, just rolled over. It cannot be otherwise because our money is debt. As you say, what we need is actual responsible stewardship of the money supply to ensure that it doesn't grow faster than the economy as a whole.
I'm not really sure what it will look like when it comes crashing down. It's complicated by the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency and the US has a powerful military. So there are many powerful actors that are invested in keeping the dollar afloat one way or another. I can't really even speculate on what that would look like as there are so many moving parts and unknown variables. Broadly I expect that the vast majority of people will lose all their wealth and be impoverished, while certain connected insiders come out richer than before. And I agree that it will be worse than expected.
I love it when idiots like you spout off about the nature of money. It gives me a good laugh. There is no need for debt for our money supply to have value. The nature of money is based on the goods and services that we produce whether the paper currency is "backed" by gold, silver, dog shit or nothing at all. The reality is that economies based on the gold standard imploded and getting rid of the gold standard does nothing to make a currency any more stable or unstable.
I didn't say anything about the gold standard. Likewise, I said nothing about debt being a requirement for money. Yet you think I'm the idiot. I just pointed out that debt is how our money is created in the United States in 2015. Are you challenging that assertion or did you just want to take a poke at me over nothing?
I would argue that one cannot simultaneously be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Social liberals uniformly support the massive welfare state that threatens our very existence as a nation. The debt is now larger than GDP. Let that sink in. Not only that, but the way that the government figures its debt would get any CFO thrown in jail. The government chooses to use a cash-based instead of an accrual-based system to hide the truth. If they used the accrual-based system, the debt would be over $96 trillion (or over 5X GDP), as opposed to the $18 trillion widely reported. $96 trillion represents over $800K per citizen (including children).
Fiscal conservatism means living within our means, instead of this massive intergenerational theft.
There is no theft. Money is created as needed. It doesn't need to be repaid, just rolled over. Indeed, it cannot be repaid. Under the Federal Reserve system money is debt. If you want to eliminate the debt, you will eliminate the money.
Once you see how money is really created, you will see that the debate over the debt and its size is really beside the point. The point is that all dollars are borrowed into existence, while the money to pay the interest is not. So we will never eliminate the debt; it will keep growing as long as the money supply grows, which it must to stay ahead of the interest on the debt. If that sounds inherently unstable and destined to crash at some point, I'd agree with you.
You mean jack income tax rates up to 90%? Half kidding, but I'm curious what you see about the differences between Democrats now vs. JFK era.
IIRC the 90% marginal rate was under Eisenhower. And I'd be all for returning to that!
The SJWs here seem bound and determined to give these MRAs far more exposure than they would have otherwise.
They need each other, like Democrats and Republicans.
Exactly - he needs a paycheck that goes up to 11
He was Derek Smalls after all!
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai
