[QUOTE=duffer]
The government is smart enough to work it out so they never actually take in less money. How would they pay for the raises and lifetime benefits?
[/QUOTE]
There’s this thing called the national debt…
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any politician accept, or acknowledge in any way, that revenue and spending are related.
And as a proud Mechano-American, I’m not liking the trend this thread is taking.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
There’s this thing called the national debt…
[/QUOTE]
I know. I heard about that 20 years ago. It’s like a rash, keeps coming back.
[QUOTE=duffer]
The tax break angle is bullshit anyway. What DC loses in those tax reductions, it makes up for in increased taxes on wages. Say what you want of the government, but don’t kid yourself about one thing. The government is smart enough to work it out so they never actually take in less money. How would they pay for the raises and lifetime benefits?
[/quote]
In absolute terms, sure, but as a percentage of GDP, which makes more sense, not true.
Here is a graph of corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, this shows various sorts of receipts as a percentage of the GDP.
Since wages are not the only component of prices, the MW worker will do better. Yeah, McDonalds wages will go up, but not the price of beef or potatoes.
You neglect the $6.00 worker who will now make 7.25, etc. The pushup of the intervening levels will tend to raise the pay of the lower paid hourly workers, though I’m sure there will be more wage compression as employers save money by not paying the better paid ones (better, more experienced workers, right?) the same raise the MW workers get.
I’m old enough to have lived through several MW wage increases, and the doomsday scenarios have never come to pass.
Why should the government be involved in employer-employee contracts anyway? What, do you think if there were no minimum wage, employers would only be offering $2 an hour?
Do away with the MW altogether, I say.
Minimum wage in Oregon is $7.50/hr. We manage to have businesses of all sizes continue to operate in spite of this dreadful situation and a shit burger at McDonalds here costs the same as a McDonald’s shit burger anywhere else. The government is needed to step in to legislate a minimum wage because there is always someone out there hungry enough to take a job for any wage at all and employers willing to undercut everyone else if they can get away with it.
With all that said it’s pretty shitty trying to live on $7.50 and hour and I bet it’s just way more shitty at under six bucks. If the CEOs of major corporations took a ten percent wage cut they could probably afford to raise wages significantly for their bottom tier employees and the CEO wouldn’t be exactly starving, y’know. I’m just ashamed I live in a country where a decent minimum wage and health care are still considered to be negotiable items. You’d think we’d have come a bit further… :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ivylass]
Why should the government be involved in employer-employee contracts anyway? What, do you think if there were no minimum wage, employers would only be offering $2 an hour?..
[/QUOTE]
If they could get away with it? You bet! When questioned, they intone somberly about their sacred duty to their stockholders. Sometimes they dab at thier eyes with a mongrammed hanky. Unregulated capitalism is a monster that eats people and shits poison.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m old enough to have lived through several MW wage increases, and the doomsday scenarios have never come to pass.
[/QUOTE]
9/11 changed everything.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If they could get away with it? You bet!
[/QUOTE]
I’d expect that the consequent rapid expansion of the International Union of Fast Food Workers of America would soon put a stop to wages that low. Maybe we’d have a few years of ‘Burger strikes’ and ‘pizza lockouts’, but the market would adjust, and even republicans would be forced to conclude that ‘union label’ fries are a healthier food choice than scabby tatertots. If the elitists want class warfare in America again, they can get it.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If they could get away with it? You bet! When questioned, they intone somberly about their sacred duty to their stockholders. Sometimes they dab at thier eyes with a mongrammed hanky. Unregulated capitalism is a monster that eats people and shits poison.
[/QUOTE]
I honestly didn’t think it was possible. But in your time off you’ve become even more bitter than before. I’d go so far as to say that now, by comparison, Diogenes looks like a conservative!
Unregulated capitalism? What the hell is regulated capitalism then? I’m not sure what your situation is right now, but the frequency of your posts to a message board indicates you may actually be doing alright in life.
Ever notice when talking to people that say the economy is shit they usually talk about friends or neighbors? For the most part it goes something like this:
“Well, I’m doing OK, but my neighbor is getting fucked over.”
And if you ask the neighbor, he’ll often say the same of his neighbor.
Now, I have to ask a serious question. Do you honestly think a company would hire legal workers at $2/hour if they could? Do you have any grasp of reality left to realize how fast that company would sink?
I get the hyperbole in your new style. But based on your posts in the past few days, I’m not sure you do.
BTW, Voyager, I’ll read your response closer. Seems to be a few good points there.
[QUOTE=duffer]
Now, I have to ask a serious question. Do you honestly think a company would hire legal workers at $2/hour if they could?
[/QUOTE]
Of course they would! What alternate universe are you living in? They’re already doing it with illegal workers. What on Og’s green earth makes you think they wouldn’t rub their hands with glee if they could get away with doing so legally?!!
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
If the CEOs of major corporations took a ten percent wage cut they could probably afford to raise wages significantly for their bottom tier employees and the CEO wouldn’t be exactly starving, y’know. I’m just ashamed I live in a country where a decent minimum wage and health care are still considered to be negotiable items. You’d think we’d have come a bit further… :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Wal-Mart has about 1.2M employees worldwide. Assuming that half of them are full-time and half half-time, that’s an average of 30 hours a week per employee. That’s an average of 1560 hours per year per employee. That times 1.2M is 1.872 billion hours of labour.
The CEO of Wal-Mart had a total compensation of $17,543,739 in 2004.
http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/walmart_pay_gap.htm
Let’s take 10% of that. That’s $1,754,373. Dividing that between the 1.872 billion labour hours yields a whopping $0.000937 per hour. Let’s take his entire salary - now we’re up to about $0.00937 per hour - about a penny per hour.
Not a very good solution. As a stretch, I’d reckon that’s why it doesn’t get employed as such.
But that $0.000937 per hour would really add up you know…
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Of course they would! What alternate universe are you living in? They’re already doing it with illegal workers. What on Og’s green earth makes you think they wouldn’t rub their hands with glee if they could get away with doing so legally?!!
[/QUOTE]
You are right…they would. Assuming they could get away with it of course. Get away with it? Yeah…IF they could find folks willing to work those jobs at that rate, then they certainly would do it. And if they could…well then, that sort of tells you something right there (well, it would tell ME something anyway).
However, you said it yourself…these are ILLEGAL workers. Their choices and options are very limited. They usually don’t speak the language very well, they are usually uneducated and unskilled laborers working in niche, vertical markets (like the farm industry). This wouldn’t exactly translate into every business suddenly getting to rub their hands with glee and dropping their wages to the rock bottom. Because you (like many who make this arguement) have forgotten that labor works both ways…and the laborers ALSO get to choose if they wish to sell their labor at such a price. Perhaps some will…most won’t however. Most will determine that $2/hour isn’t worth it for their time and effort and so will go to the smart companies who are paying more…and thus actually have employees to work for them.
The hand rubbing, top hatted fat cats, lighting their cuban cigars with $100 bills and offering jobs at $2/hour will rapidly find out that its kind of hard to run a business without employees…
-XT
[QUOTE=Maureen]
But I do agree, if a small business is going to have to pay a large increase in wages, they should get some kind of break. As for mega-corps like Wal Mart, well…screw 'em.
[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps the hardline pubs could increase the MW a little every year, instead of a BIG increase every nine years (or whatever) so it wouldn’t hurt so much. But nah, increasing the MW is bad for business. Maybe next year… :rolleyes:
“Forced at gunpoint?” Nobody’s forcing anybody at gunpoint to do anything here. Nobody forced those people to start or run businesses. They can step off the perch and live on $5.15 an hour like the rest of us any time they want to.
It’s not like $5.15 is a generous wage and we need to apologize for demanding more, and give the rich something in return. No. $5.15 is a ridiculous 1990s wage. The rich owe their employees the difference, not the other way around. They can afford to get a little bit lopped off the top of their millions, and still go out and buy people (at the new, extortionist minimum wage) to drive cars I wouldn’t mind living in.
That said, if the current estate tax affects people with an amount of money that is no longer plentiful (which is possible), then yeah, the threshold should be raised. I don’t know those numbers, but somehow I doubt that people are getting financially crippled by estate tax in the same way that people are financially crippled by working for minimum wage.
Meanwhile, my classmate (in a state with a MW $1.60 higher than the federal) whose main goal is to get a degree and start a college savings fund for her son before she dies of cancer, lives 40 miles away from the suburbs (nevermind the city proper), has to sell pieces of her movie collection to buy gasoline so she can drive down the hill and get to class on time, and she and her son very simply would not eat without food stamps, nor could they undergo medical procedures more involved than applying Band-Aids without one of the nation’s better state health plans, which still doesn’t cover most of her vital medical expenses (see “trying to earn some money to build a decent life for her son before she dies of cancer”).
(I see now that you were being facetious, but I still think I’ve made some good points here.)
Err..yeah…if by “most” you mean 18 out of 50, eight of which are small Northeastern states not called New York. Most states have the same state minimum wage as the federal, six don’t have any minimum wage at all, and one has a lower minimum wage than the federal; presumably those seven are hoping that the federal minimum wage is decreased somehow. $5.15 an hour is a ridiculous amount of money to try to make a living and go to school on*. $6.75, California’s minimum wage, is not a rational wage to expect people to live on when contrasted against California living expenses.
If a small business is decent and caring about their employees’ welfare (presumably this is why you’re making a distinction between small businesses and Wal-Mart), they’re already paying above the minimum wage, because the minimum wage is not livable. If they can’t afford to pay reasonable wages, too bad, they should come up with a better business plan or get better loans.
Except, conveniently, the one which automatically raises their pay, which I understand to be algorithmic.
Yes. Have you ever heard of slavery? How about child labor? These things are not without precedent.
It seems like a charicature, the fat cat Wall Street running dog Republican, determined to wrest some sort of compensation for his ruling class masters to assuage the discomfort of extending a bit of decency. Its a cheap parody, more Scrooge McDuck than Barry Goldwater.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
some sort of compensation for his ruling class masterstending a bit of decency. Its a cheap parody, more Scrooge McDuck than Barry Goldwater.
[/QUOTE]
$300 billion-plus over 10 years. That should be enough compensation to cover the cost of this ‘gun to the head’ charity, but you never know. Maybe, to be on the safe side, we should just stop taxing anyone who makes over five million a year.
In this morning’s paper in Red-state Indiana, this little bill is getting a large article. The headline is:
GOP tries to couple minimum wage increase with estate tax cut
The article quotes several senators saying that the GOP is trying to blackmail the poor, and the only time it is referred to as the “death tax” is in a direct quote from a Frist staffer. It also notes that the congress managed to give itself a pay raise with no strings attached.
I predict this ploy is going to come back and bite the GOP in the ass.
If this tax cut is supposed to offset the increase in the minimum wage, why make it the so called “death tax” that gets cut? The business owners will pay more out in wages and their children will be the ones that recieve relief in the inheritance. Who does this make sense to?
[QUOTE=duffer]
Unregulated capitalism? What the hell is regulated capitalism then?
[/quote]
Pretty much what we’ve had since the New Deal. It’s worked pretty well, too. Unregulated capitalism gave us the Depression.
If that was the market rate, certainly they would. That’s how the Great God Free Market works, innit?