AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > August > 04 > Entry
Do local governments have the right to dictate the wages and benefits of big business?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
It’s sometimes fashionable for local lawmakers to demand that “big business” provide better wages and benefits. They have deep pockets, right? Even if smaller companies can’t afford to raise minimum wages, surely, they say indignantly, large ones like WalMart can. Chicago lawmakers, for example, just required all big box stores to pay a higher minimum wage.
Unfortunately, this sort of requirement ignores the fundamentals that make businesses big to begin with. Businesses sell more – and thus grow — when they keep their own costs low enough to offer better prices than the guy next door. Economics 101.
Therefore (Economics 201), forcing local companies to increase their wage and benefit costs has one of two consequences. Either the company must raise prices — thereby losing customers and perhaps even dwindling until they are no longer a cash cow that can be milked for all its worth. Or, the company must find another way to keep costs level – which, unfortunately, usually means relocating outside the higher-cost city.
WalMart is America’s largest private employer, and takes pride in actively entering marginal neighborhoods that others have abandoned, providing thousands of much-needed jobs. A Global Insight study found that in 2004 alone, WalMart was responsible for 210,000 U.S. jobs that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. Chicago city council members should be grateful for these big businesses, instead of forcing them to leave the neighborhoods that need the jobs most.
Ironically, even where businesses persevere in a higher minimum-wage area, low-income people still suffer. Researchers at Duke, Michigan State and Boston University have all found that minimum wage hikes attract college kids and wealthier teenagers, displacing low-skilled adults. A Cornell study demonstrated that a10% “living wage” hike led to an 8.5% increase in unemployment for adults without high school diplomas. John Doyle, an Employment Policies Institute spokesman, argues that instead of requiring wage hikes, governments should help lower-income workers get the skills that will earn higher wages. “The unintended consequences of a higher wage requirement are irrefutable: low skilled workers will lose. The issue is what to do for them that will actually work. And there, education and training is the key.”
Rebuttal
If big business pays paltry wages and the federal government remains apathetic, state government has no choice but to legislate in their own self-interest. The federal government hasn’t changed the minimum wage since 1997. Despite nearly a decade of inflation, those living on minimum wage still take home a mere $5.15 dollars an hour. That’s about $11,000 a year.
The buying power of minimum wage is at a 51-year low, having eroded twenty percent in purchasing power, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Impressive productivity rates haven’t trickled down, but shot up, way up, and into the pockets of CEOs with multi-million dollar salaries.
Those on the front lines ferret out a living like third world refugees. Forty-six percent of low-wage workers with children are their children’s sole financial support reports the EPI. Those at the top are executives like Wal-Mart CEO, H. Lee Scott, who earned millions last year, with millions more in unexercised stock options.
But companies like Wal-Mart would rather look good by handing out gifts to the less fortunate through the Dr. Phil show. What’s the cost of a big-screen TV when you can get priceless publicity. It’s more cost-effective than paying the 1.8 million Wal-Mart employees a decent wage. Especially since there are so many supporters touting the benefits of Wal-Mart’s low-ticket items.
But saving some money on a bag of Cheetos isn’t going to make up for the indigent hospital care and social services Americans subsidize. Forty-six percent of Wal-Mart employee children are on Medicaid or uninsured as compared to twenty-nine percent for other larger retailers, reports the EPI, citing an internal Wal-Mart survey. “Truly progressive policy should focus on the big-ticket items in most families’ budget—health care, housing, and education,” explains an Economic Policy Institute paper.
It’s little wonder states are organizing living wage campaigns and passing legislation to compensate short-changed families in dire need of a minimum wage increase. That’s what cities like Chicago are doing. For a Fortune 500 company like Wal-Mart, ten dollars an hour won’t break them.
Big business needs to compensate employees fairly — or get out of town.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Brian Curtis
August 7, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
To answer the question: Yes. Corporations are not citizens, and they have no rights.
By Lyrazel
August 7, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
The classic touch of irony to this debate:
U.S. senators — who draw salaries of $162,100 a year have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25. Last week, the Senate voted 65-33 to raise its own pay. Actually, in classic Congress style, the vote wasn’t just a straightforward up or down vote on whether or not to raise its own pay. If they had a simple vote like that, people watching C-Span might actually understand what was going on, and might have an opinion. So, instead, the Senate voted 33-65 against allowing an amendment to be voted on that would have prohibited an automatic cost-of-living adjustment from going ahead. Got it? Confused? Of course you should be! Its exactly HOW they can come back to their constituents and say: I never voted for a pay raise!
The House had a pay raise vote this year, too. But you wouldn’t know if it you looked on the web or even if you asked your own Representative. Actually, in July, the House voted 293-129 to give itself a pay raise. Like the Senate, it wasn’t a vote that was easy to decipher. People trying to stop the pay raise used a procedural move to force a vote, so the actual vote was on Ordering the Previous Question for House Resolution 206. Believe it or not, this is Washington-speak for a pay raise vote.
Look beyond Wal-Mart. Look out for yourself when you vote and do the US a favor by voting these people OUT!
By Archie
August 7, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Thank you Lyrazel for your 8:48 am post. Local governments are saying to companies that you will be fair in this town, but there are also many states that have already raised the minimum wage. There was a report on this months ago but the public has to become concerned and less cold-hearted when it comes to compensation and benefits. My one-line answer to the topic question is yes,and they are already doing it.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
I do not think the government should be dictating the wages and benefits of big business, and I’m sure I will get a fair amount of flack for my opinion.
A business should not rely on the government to make it’s policies and how to tell it to become profitable. If the company is paying wages too low, or their benefits and compensation package is not competitive, they will know because employees will either be walking off the job, or not doing a good job while they are there. How can the government tell me I must pay an individual 5.00 an hour when I think their job is only worth 4.50.
By Kurtis R.E. Segars
August 7, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Once again, these two morons miss the point. It isn’t about a “fair wage”. Nor is it about economics. It is about freedom, freedom to negociate our wage without being hindred by the government. If I am willing to work for $4.00 an hour, why should I not be allowed to?
By Leslie
August 7, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Why not just pay everybody $20 an hour? Fair is in the eye of the beholder. I think a wage should be what the market is willing to pay. If its $5 an hour, so be it. If you have a skill that the market desperately needs (remember all those IT jobs?) then you can make $60 an hour. You want to make more money, then get better skills or find a job that no one wants to do. Let capitalism have her way!
By jim d
August 7, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
Let me splain this in Spanish.
EL No
Government meddling has brought us to where we currently find ourselves. Allowing LOCAL authorities to meddle more would only serve to worsen matters
By Mara
August 7, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is the customer who pays the wages. - Henry Ford
Why, Kurtis? Three little words…the common good. Industry will exploit workers as much as possible, which is why we needed labor laws in the first place. Just as the industry barons in the 20’s and 30’s were able to hire laborers and use them up, so would todays barons do if we didn’t have laws against it. Ask any ex-meat packer what happens when people come in willing to ignore safety standards and wage laws as the illegal aliens have done in the mid-west. Ask any ex-roofer what happens, or carpet installers, tilers, or concrete guys. Remember, there’s always someone more desperate than you around the corner who’ll be willing to work for $3.00..then $2.00 and so on.
Unless you like the idea of company towns and a permanent underclass…
By lozen
August 7, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
I agree with Segars and Leslie; screw ‘em if they don’t have skills. Why shouldn’t we work ‘em for nothing if we can? And screw their kids too! Whata we care that they don’t have health care, decent food, and the things the middle class take for granted? And let those CEO’s and politicians continue raising their salaries; I mean, who’s really doing the work here? Yay, capitalism! Yay, taking advantage of anybody we can! Yay, greed! I mean, we gotta have somebody to do the sh— work now that slavery isn’t legal anymore, don’t we?
By Renee
August 7, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
People make a decision about where they want to work and what they are willing to put up with. If my company feels like my job is only worth 12.00/hrly with no compensation and benefits, it’s not mandatory that I take it.
One thing I found out about Vermont, is the cost of living is higher, and the wages are lower. I’ve taken a pay decrease by moving here, BUT, it was up to me, how “bad” of a decrease I would take. Sure there are people that are actually hiring for secretaries, executive assistants etc., wanting to pay about 10.00 an hour and still expecting college degree. While I find this a bit ridiculous, I know that these are the companies that I do not want to work for.
The government would spend their time better making sure all of their employees are paid fairly, rather than trying to move their weight about all corporations.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Amen, Mara. Why mandate a minimum wage? Won’t people leave their jobs if the compensation isn’t up to snuff? Well, no. People won’t leave Wal-Mart because it’s the only place they can work. When Wal-Mart comes in with their lower-than-typical-store prices, people stop shopping at typical stores. Those stores then are forced to cut costs, laying off people if not going completely out of business. Now these stores’ former employees go get jobs at Wal-mart. Of course, on Wal-Mart’s pay they can afford to shop nowhere but Wal-Mart.
http://www.jibjab.com/JokeBox/JokeBox_JJOrig.aspx?movieid=122
By Billy
August 7, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Renee, I think it’s a gross oversimplification of things to fall back onto the “Just don’t work there, then argument. If someone with a family to feed gets laid off, he has little choice but to take what he can get.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
I’m just curious, lozen, what do you think the minimum wage should be? Would $20.00 be fair to you.
One reason, that the wages are so low here, is because Vermont’s minimum wage is 7.50. While this may work out great for the underskilled etc., this does not work for your average, experienced employee.
For instance, how much, do you feel a Walmart greeter be paid. Walmart may feel as if 4.00 is sufficient. So, they then should not be allowed to pay 4.00 hrly to someone willing to take the job, they should then have to pay the wage that the “government” thinks they should pay.
And from what you seem to be saying, anyone taking a job for minimum wage or less (if it was legal) would then be a slave that would be taken advantage of.
And I don’t say “screw the kids”, however, if you know you are a french fryer, or hamburger maker and your skills dictate 5.00/hrly, then why should you then be paid a large salary because you whine “it’s not fair” and “I got kids”. Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them on your salary. Work 2 jobs, go to school and get more skills so that you can demand a higher salary. But nooooo, that’s out of the question….whine and complain and let the government handle your salary problems and they will tell the employer what to fairly pay you.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
I tell you what you should do — Make a law creating a new tax bracket for corporations based on the way they pay their employees. If any executive makes more than 100 times what the lowest-paid worker makes (up to a reasonable amount — let’s say $15/hr), then you tax the hell out of the company. I mean, if a company like Wal-Mart is going to refuse to pay its employees enough to cover healthcare for their children, then the state shouhld take enough out of Wal-Mart’s coffers to pay for MedicAid for those employees and their kids.
By Bruce
August 7, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Certain labor laws are in deed needed and necessary but I believe if you take a position knowing what the pay is and what you will be asked to do to earn that pay then it is no one’s fault but your own if you stay in that situtation. You want more money, do what it takes to earn it.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
But is that the company’s fault Billy????
The goverment is in our lives ENOUGH as it is. So let’s just let them in some more, tell my employer the type of health coverage and wage they must offer me. That’s crazy.
Unfortunately, I think this is one of those debates, that neither side will give on, so we will probably beat this dead horse today and move onto something else soon.
By lozen
August 7, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Here’s a link to the transcript of the program about gay marriage that will be broadcast this Wednesday at 7pm on public radio.
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/gaymarriage/transcript.shtml
By Toad
August 7, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Bouncing off of Billy’s ideas — it would be better to have a maximum wage. CEO’s and other executives can’t make more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employees. Then if they want more for themselves, they can raise the lowest salaries.
By Brian Curtis
August 7, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Or tie the minimum wage directly to Congressional salaries.
By Archie
August 7, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Some people do have to work for minimum wage and that will always be true,but those people still need to be compensated fairly. What keeps slavery from being in existence is the minimum wage here in America. There’s a thing called common decency and if one does not have it on his/her on then yes the government should step in and mandate it when it comes to pay. As Lozen implied earlier some folks idea of capitalism is to take advantage of anyone it can in the name of making a dollar and that’s not right and also I think there’s too much distance between the upper management and regular employees. We have not gotten far enough from this slavemaster/slave mentality in this country.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Exactly, Toad.
Renee — Yes, it is the company’s fault. I don’t see this as getting the government more into our lives. I see it as the government of and for the people getting involved in the lives of the executives who dictate pay to all their underlings.
There was a Dilbert strip I saw the other day. A guy goes to his boss and says he should get a $400 million bonus like the CEO just did. His boss says that the CEO is worth a million times more to the company than the guy is. The guy ask for the $400 his boss just said he’s worth.
This is the business world’s philosophy on this, it appears.
By Jack
August 7, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Yes. The gov’t should control everything. How much we make, what we eat, who we sleep with and how often. If they take from us “haves” and give some to the “have nots”, then we can all be “have a littles” I got in trouble with my wife because she saw guests on Oprah that were living on minimum wage and I showed no pity or compassion. If you are an adult and make minimum wage and are not in school or training to better yourself, that is your choice. I can see doing it for a while but if you choose to do it for the long run, you are a loser.
By Scalia
August 7, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
I do not believe that the government should decide what the employees make, but I do have a problem with the CEOs of the company making 2.5 million dollars and huge retirement plans. I refuse to believe that the head of the company is worth that much money when the workers are the ones making the company stay afloat. And if the government does require a minimum wage increase, won’t more outsourcing just occur? Why should I pay more when I can get a third-world employee to do it for a third of what I am paying you?
By Scalia
August 7, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
I do not believe that the government should decide what the employees make, but I do have a problem with the CEOs of the company making 2.5 million dollars and huge retirement plans. I refuse to believe that the head of the company is worth that much money when the workers are the ones making the company stay afloat. And if the government does require a minimum wage increase, won’t more outsourcing just occur? Why should I pay more when I can get a third-world employee to do it for a third of what I am paying you?
By Renee
August 7, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Isn’t it kind of ironic that the same “government” that wants to regulate corporations and their salaries does vote to increase their salary. What hypocrisy.
“Company A needs to pay their employees 5.00 hrly, oh and by the way, increase our salary 56 percent.”
If someone with a family to feed gets laid off, he has little choice but to take what he can get.
This was your comment, Billy, and I asked you if this was the company’s fault, to which you replied “yes”. I would love to know how.
Theoretically, one would think that a company would offer their employees competive salary and benefits. Theoretically, one would think that a board of directors would only approve a moderate salary increase for the CEO and other officers. This, unfortuntately is not the case, and probably the reason people see the need for government intervention. I think that corporation have a way of destroying themselves. If you have a problem with the way Walmart does business, with customers OR employees, then don’t patronize them. Otherwise, you spending your money there, in a manner of speaking, is suppporting them, in their quest to be “unfair to their employees”.
Nobody at Walmart is a slave, and I’m wondering how much you feel like a cashier, or greeter should be paid. And benefits ARE offered, but I’m not sure at what cost to the employee. But welcome to the real world.
This is why I teach my daughter that education is important, and you will never make it in the world without one or with some minimal job. Generally people don’t WANT minimal jobs but what skills do they have to offer other than minimal math, labor, and speaking skills.
Whenever, I go on an interview etc, I dictate my salary. There is a minimum I have before I will even consider employment, and I’m sure many others on here do the same. Or do you take whatever is offered, no matter the circumstances, and then complain. Even if I was laid off, and I had to take a job immediately, I might do that. But I would be looking for more conducive employment while I am working. And me being able to demand a salary or compensation package has nothing to do with me being “fortunate”, it has to do with me having the skills and wherewith to do so.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Nice, Jack. Someone who gets a third-rate education (at no fault of his own) and then is limited to minimum wage jobs while trying to survive in a world of ever-increasing prices is a loser if he doesn’t find the time (and money) to seek out additional training to bump him from $5.25 to $6.00.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
What is considered a third-rate education in our country?
By The72John
August 7, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
The same people opposed to the government mandating a minimum wage are almost always the same people in favor of the government giving out enormous tax incentives to companies to move into their areas. Does anyone see the contradiction here? It’s OK for the government to engage in corporate welfare, but any attempt to ensure that employees earn a living wage is met with resistance.
A minimum wage helps this country’s economy stay strong. Believe it or not, it’s factual. It’s easy to get caught up in the emotional plea of “If they want to earn more they can”, but that simply isn’t the case. Not only are many people not capable of learning skills to earn them more than a minimum wage, those jobs will always be necessary. Wal-Mart will always need clerks. Home Depot will always need people to haul stuff to your car. By not requiring that a living wage be paid (which, by the way, minimum wage does not come close to - anyone on minimum wage is still living below the poverty level - you are suggesting that there should always be a poverty-stricken underclass. That’s morally reprehensible.
Now, who do you suppose supports our consumer-based economy and keeps it going? It isn’t the .05% of people who hold the majority of the wealth in this country, it’s the working class people. Without all of those people you dismiss as worthless spending money, our economy would tank.
By Scalia
August 7, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Billy, I am going to have to disagree with you. It kinda baffles me that in 2006, there are people still getting a third grade education. This isn’t the time when Ma and Pa made you quick school to work on the farm, or to support the family. And when the older kids did do that, they would work to make sure that the younger ones could stay in school and get a good education. What happened to our society? Why did the people some fifty or sixty years ago have this integrity that the kids of today lack? I can’t think of a kid today that would drop out of school, and work to support the family.
Back to education, we have a free education system. The law requires children to go to school. There is no reason why there is a low graduation rate. Not to mention, all of the trades that are needed. Plumbing, electrician, car mechanic, or even a barber. You can make a really good living doing that. What about the military? They pay for you to go back to college. Not to mention the salary that you get, and they train you in a skill. There are plenty of options out there.
By Mara
August 7, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Despite the assertions that say a higher minimim wage kills job growth, studies (like this one http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/press_040421.stm ) seem to show the opposite.
“This report examines the effects of minimum wages on employment and payrolls in small businesses. The analysis makes several comparisons between states with a higher minimum wage than the federal $5.15 minimum and all other states (i.e., those states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails). Particular attention is paid in this report to the retail sector since that is the industry employing the most workers at low wages.”
“The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy - the years 1998 through 2000 - as well as the years of recession and extraordinarily slow growth since then (2001 through 2003).”
Total employment in the higher minimum wage states increased by 6.2 percent from January 1998 to January 2004, 50 percent greater than the combined job growth of 4.1 percent for the other states where the federal minimum wage prevailed; and retail employment grew by 6.1 percent in the minimum wage states versus 1.9 percent in the other states.”
and I have to say that I really like some of the ideas from Billy, Toad, and Brian Curtis. Tying the wages of the least of us to the golden parachutes for the CEO class or Political class…it simply seems, well…just.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Not only are many people not capable of learning skills to earn them more than a minimum wage, those jobs will always be necessary. Wal-Mart will always need clerks. Home Depot will always need people to haul stuff to your car. By not requiring that a living wage be paid (which, by the way, minimum wage does not come close to - anyone on minimum wage is still living below the poverty level - you are suggesting that there should always be a poverty-stricken underclass. That’s morally reprehensible.
There will be always a poverty-stricken underclass. That is part of the compilation of a society. While, it might not be “right” or “fair” , it is a reality. While, Walmart will always need clerks, or baggers, is it not fair to say that job may be demanding physically, but mentally, it doesn’t take that much. And generally speaking there is a class of people who do these jobs. Either people who are working it as a second job, or someone who doesn’t have the drive to do anything else in life (yes, these people exist) or the person who is not smart enough or mentally able to do anything else. Also, maybe convicts or someone getting a second chance after jail or job rehab. Or, I’ll even give you a college student trying to work and go to school.
Putting all of that together, how much is it worth to be a cashier. Since some people in here seem to disagree with the minimum wage, how much do you think it should be. Would you feel it was fair to raise the minimum wage to YOUR salary. I mean after all, they can’t live on what they are paid, and they have kids.
We go to school and get an education and/or skills for a reason, which is so we can live a comfortable life. If we are just going to give EVERYBODY a comfortable life, no matter their skills etc, then this country will really be on a faster track to destruction.
By Jack
August 7, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
That’s right Billy. Loser. Especially if you have children, you owe it to them to improve youself to help them.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Renee, I was thinking it was about a different comment. No, Company A laying off an employee is not Company B’s fault. But if Company A is paying its CEO $20 million a year? Well, I can think of ways to save money other than layoffs in those cases.
I don’t think a greeter needs a lot of pay. But then again, I’ve seen schizophrenics doing that exact thing outside other stores. Cashiers, while not highly skilled, are important to the store. I’m not saying they should make $35K a year, but minimum wage is not adequate.
I don’t think local (or even state) governments are at all out of line in demanding that big box stores take the miniscule step of at least appearing like they are compensating all their employees somewhat fairly, because the burden of providing for those employees and their families is going to fall to the state anyway. Not to mention the employees who lose their jobs due to the detrimental effect the stores (Wal-Mart, at least) have on neighboring businesses.
And I think you are dismissing the “fortunate” argument rather quickly. Being fortunate in no way excludes the possibility of also working hard. But we have to keep in mind that there are plenty of people who have worked and do work hard but have been unfortunate and are in their positions through no fault of their own. Much the way Paris Hilton has done nothing to warrant her money, so too are there many who have done nothing to deserve their lack thereof. While you may have not had everything handed to you on a silver platter, I’d imagine it wasn’t Dad working 100 hours a week, Mom working 40, ramen for dinner 7 nights a week. Or Mom and Dad not being there at all as a child. I don’t think people should have to pay for the sins of the father.
By lozen
August 7, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
And me being able to demand a salary or compensation package has nothing to do with me being “fortunate”, it has to do with me having the skills and wherewith to do so. Renee, I understand to a degree. And I don’t like the government involved in our lives either Jack, but it is. The gov’t establishes labor laws and look at the circumstances people had to labor under before the gov’t got involved and established labor laws. Children of 10 worked in cotton mills 10 and 12 hours a day. Women were locked into factories for 10 and 12 hours a day with no way out when the building caught on fire. I’m sure the business owners were only trying to take care of the bottom line there too. What about people who don’t have the skills and intelligence you have? (In my opinion you and I are “fortunate” to have those skills.) What about the person who had to drop out of high school (for whatever reason: low I.Q., learning problems, pregnant at 13, no motivation from parents who were uneducated) and now has two or three kids and is a single parent. They still can be a responsible, hardworking person. How can that person come up with the money and time and motivation and child care resources on $5.15 an hour to go back to school? I just think that person and his/her children are still entitled to a decent living and that isn’t possible on $5.00 an hour. The people who do the unskilled labor are necessary to the economy and should make a living wage in the richest country in the world! (And it’s far too easy to make kids! To think that people won’t have kids unless they’re making $20 an hour is kind of a fantasy.)
By The72John
August 7, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
There will be always a poverty-stricken underclass. That is part of the compilation of a society. While, it might not be “right” or “fair” , it is a reality.
What do you think the effect on society would be if the minimum wage were removed, and the existing poverty-stricken underclass became even more so?
It’s very easy to be self-righteous about how YOU worked hard and YOU have achieved, so why can’t THEY do the same. But what is the effect on society, do you think, if wages are allowed to plummet to the point where those who have no way of improving their lot in life are forced to stay in jobs that pay less and less?
Increased crime. Increased drain on social services. Increased violence. Poverty also historically leads to an increase in alcoholism and drug use.
It always amazes me when people who are otherwise reasonable show such lack of compassion for the less fortunate.
By lozen
August 7, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour (ha, fat chance!) wouldn’t make a family of four “comfortable”. It would just raise them above the official poverty level (?)I think. Encouraging companies to give all employees health care benefits would mean we wouldn’t be paying for their health care with our taxes when they have to go to emergency rooms for health care.
By Archie
August 7, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
I agree with Billy and Toad for the most part and I posted something months ago about the huge difference in the salaries of upper management and the workers. The difference is greater here in America than anywhere else as far as management vs non-management salaries. Renee, because some skills are lesser than others it does not mean those with the lesser skills should be treated unfairly. The cost of some schools is entirely too much and even going to a 2-year school make take funds that a person earning 5.15/hr does not have. I worked for the minimum with a degree for a short while and although I was looking for a job I still had to work with that low wage for awhile but I had a support system and I went back to school. Mandating a minimum,minumum wage is not guaranteeing anyone a comfortable life, it’s just saying we’re a decent country.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
I didn’t say third-grade. I said third rate. And I’m not sure what I’d consider a third-rate education. I didn’t have one. I’ll call mine second-rate, since our options for a wide variety of classes weren’t what my high school now has. And my school was the best in our county. Probably the best north of Gwinnett…It’s hard to argue that everyone gets a good education when people cannot find Iraq on a map or name the Vice President. Or when such a huge portion of our country believes Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Yes, education is free and compulsory up to a certain age. Yes, it’s stupid to drop out. But we also have to remember that when a 15 year-old boy sees his mother busting her arse to put plain spaghetti noodles on the table and then sees his friend bringing in $2000 a week selling drugs, he’s going to be tempted to take the quick fix. Seeing friends and family spend their lives trying to work within the system to improve their lives but getting nowhere leads to a sense of hopelessness, and affirmation that the system offers no way out. If that feeling sets in, people will go outside the system.
By lozen
August 7, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Well hell, why can’t they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? That’s the great American fantasy isn’t it? Shoot, that guy only has an I.Q. of 85 (due to maternal alcoholism). Let him go to school if he wants to make more money! We’ve been inundated with bull about lazy people, good for nothings, and welfare mothers since Ronald Reagan. Yeah, our great prez who threw mentally ill people out of hospitals and onto the streets!
By Drunkoncommonsense
August 7, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Diane, do you really not understand that raising wages above the present market rate prices low-skilled workers out of the market, encouraging them to be on public assistance that the rest us pick up the bill for? Think about how often people saw elevator operators after the first big minimum wage increase years ago; you didn’t. Their job was priced away and employers were forced to either invest in technology that eliminated their position entirely; or, in the case of Wal-Mart, which operates at an astonishingly low marginal cost, the company could move their store to another community that is more than happy to receive new jobs that generally start out, even in most of Georgia, where the cost of living is much lower than in other ares, at well over a dollar over minimum wage even for door greeter and cashier positions. Government needs to stay out of the market entirely. It’s not their place to even try and be a part of private citizens and their wage contracts with employers. They have their hands in pocketboooks enough.
By Drunkoncommonsense
August 7, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Diane, do you really not understand that raising wages above the present market rate prices low-skilled workers out of the market, encouraging them to be on public assistance that the rest us pick up the bill for? Think about how often people saw elevator operators after the first big minimum wage increase years ago; you didn’t. Their job was priced away and employers were forced to either invest in technology that eliminated their position entirely; or, in the case of Wal-Mart, which operates at an astonishingly low marginal cost, the company could move their store to another community that is more than happy to receive new jobs that generally start out, even in most of Georgia, where the cost of living is much lower than in other ares, at well over a dollar over minimum wage even for door greeter and cashier positions. Government needs to stay out of the market entirely. It’s not their place to even try and be a part of private citizens and their wage contracts with employers. They have their hands in pocketboooks enough.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
John, I think me and you disagree about what an “unfortunate person” actually is. I have a lot of compassion for the “less fortunate”, but apparently my opinion differs from yours as to the definition. And I understand why you feel me saying what I have accomplished was being self-righteous, but that’s not the case at all. It’s about wanting something better for yourself, and being willing to make the moves to go get it, not have it handed to you. With the Hope Scholarship, it makes it really easy, to say the least for kids to go to school and obtain education. Even single mothers can go out there and have all types of opportunitites that are given to teach them sills or send them to school. And a grown man, who has a job, and is working to support his family, but only making $5.00 might need to get two jobs. This is the price you pay for having children, with no skills and menial income. But they don’t want this. They would rather for good hardworking people like us, to argue about how to help them more. If I want a $300,000 house now, I can’t afford it. But if I work two or three more jobs, I probably could. I choose not to, and I don’t have my house.
Life is about decisions and consequences. Choosing not to go to college or choosing to have children early has a consequence. And this does not describe all minimum wage workers but enough of them it does apply to. So show some drive, if you make $5.00 an hour, ask what you can do to make manager, work your way up, come to work on time, do extra work, ask for overtime, but don’t ask the government to make this company pay you more than that company may feel as if you are worth.
I don’t know if I would take it to the extent Jack has said and call them a “loser” at all, but I am opposed to mandated salaries, minimum wage or whatever.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Just “drunk” is more like it…
By Renee
August 7, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
So should we pay the guy with the IQ of 85 10.00/hrly to push carts in and out from the lot?? It’s not the company’s fault, that this guy has an 85 IQ. What if said company does not have a position for an IQ of 85? Should the government then mandate that they are given an equal position at a corporation
By The72John
August 7, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Diane, do you really not understand that raising wages above the present market rate prices low-skilled workers out of the market, encouraging them to be on public assistance that the rest us pick up the bill for?
Conservative Myth #4,003,324. Most positions affected by minimum wage increases are relatively inelastic positions. McDonalds is not going to shut down its stores because its profitability drops by a small percentage, particularly if that percentage is uniformly enforced. Not to mention that most fast-food chains are locally-owned franchises where the owner has various motivations to remain where he is. Similarly, Wal-Mart is not going to abandon a profitable location because it’s labor costs have slightly increased. Profitability is still profitablilty.
Think about how often people saw elevator operators after the first big minimum wage increase years ago; you didn’t. Their job was priced away and employers were forced to either invest in technology that eliminated their position entirely;
Post Hoc, have you met Ergo, Propter Hoc? Developing new technologies to increase efficiencies is and will always occur. Surely you aren’t suggesting that we would still have manually operated elevators had the minimum wage never been established?
By The72John
August 7, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Life is about decisions and consequences. Choosing not to go to college or choosing to have children early has a consequence. And this does not describe all minimum wage workers but enough of them it does apply to. So show some drive, if you make $5.00 an hour, ask what you can do to make manager, work your way up, come to work on time, do extra work, ask for overtime, but don’t ask the government to make this company pay you more than that company may feel as if you are worth.
You realize that with Hope scholarships there are still plenty of people for whom college is not an option? Whether they don’t measure up academically, or they have responsibilities that prevent them from going to college.
You can’t be so naive as to believe that every single person has an opportunity to be as successful as every other person. Thankfully, our “meritocracy” allows people to rise to a level of success comensurate with their drive. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take steps to ensure that those who simply CAN’T succeed on the level of others don’t starve to death or work themselves to death at age 30. It’s called being a just, civilized society.
Renee, why don’t you tell me what you think the effects on society would be if a significant percentage of Americans descended even deeper into poverty?
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
This topic is very complex and there have been some good comments made. First of all, I’d like to suggest reading Barbara Ehrlich’s “Nickeled and Dimed” especially for those saying “Well if you want to make more get another job or training to do so.” This is much easier said than done. Even a single minimum wage earner would find that task near impossible. In order to get training or another job you need to have time off during business hours when these two activities generally occur and doing so means lost wages. Since this person is probably barely managing to pay for shelter and food a lost day’s wages can put them in a financial hole from which they’ll struggle to ever emerge. Obtaining training/education costs money and as I’ve already stated the minimum wage earner has nothing extra.
One of the other extreme complexities is one acknowledged by Lozen and Billy. Low wage workers generally do not have health care nor can they afford to obtain it on their own. What is the cost to tax payers for emergency care and social support systems to help this population? Isn’t this potentially another form of corporate welfare?
Ultimately I see this not as a legislative issue so much as a societal values issue. There was a time when the philosophy of running a success business was “take good care of your employees, they’ll take good care of your customers, and business will take care of itself.” Companies used to believe in a level of societal responsibility that no longer appears to exist. Our current approach to business places the value of stock over the value of employees and who isn’t feeling the effects of that in the work world. Customer service has become an oxymoron and the corporate message is consistently “everyone can be replaced” and “we need to increase productivity.”
In yet another oxymoron, the Republican party is the party of “family values.’ Yet this party consistently opposes any legislation that has any kind of meaningful impact to families in favor of businesses. The FMLA was opposed and still doesn’t require that one be paid during their leave. For example the Republicans preach personal responsibility and family values yet they refuse to help the person who takes a leave to care for a sick family member! And a shout out to greedy employers on this example…paying even a reduced salary for someone taking FMLA leave ensures a loyal employee and is probably less costly than recruiting a replacement (Average recruitment costs today, according to my HR dept are approximately $8K -12K from start of recruitment to start of employment)
By 2D
August 7, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
What demographic of the population fills most of the “minimum wage” jobs???
Having worked many of them (back in high school and college), there were relatively few supporting families on $5/hr. Virtually all of them were other students, married folks earning extra cash or single folks without much ambition. Again, that’s my experience.
It appears that too many folks want to make policy based on the extraordinary case (i.e. the example of the low IQ due to maternal alcoholism). Sure that situation, or others like it, may exist, but IF that is the exception, should the entire labor law change based on that set of exceptional cases.
By Mara
August 7, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Just wondering if anyone else caught the TV show “30 Days” a few weeks ago that illustrated this very argument. In case you’re not familiar with the show, it’s a product of Morgan Spurlock, the guy who brought us “Supersize Me”. In this episode Mr. Spurlock and his fiance Alex attempt to spend 30 days as minimum wage workers and try to survive. They work awful jobs, stay in a s** to keep rent down, have no car, eat the most basic neccessities, depend on charity, and try to save money they will hypothetically need the next month for the deposit on the apartment (which the landlord allowed them to pay after they moved in…).
They end up living a nightmare. Both attain injuries that need medical attention; they try free clinics, but cannot get in due to long lines. Morgan must use the emergency room, and you can imagine his bill. By the end of the 30 days they were hundreds of dollars in debt. It’s nice to think that everyone has a chance to succeed, but as this program shows, success isn’t just a matter of working a little harder, or budgeting a little better. And though it makes a great sound bite to say “Well, they just need to get some schooling.”, in the real world there’s a 10-12 hour shift (usually in manual labor)and a 45 minute bus ride home. That doesn’t leave much energy for study.
By Shannon, M.Div.
August 7, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
Drunk, do you not realize that a number of low-income people are already on public assistance that the rest of us pick up the bill for?
You folks who are capitalism-worshippers, you have a choice. You either accept that government has a role in preventing the exploitation of workers (because it IS in any given corporation’s interest to exploit workers, which to me is the heart of why pure capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity), or you accept a great deal of unnecessary human suffering through poverty.
You want to be a pure capitalist, fine by me. Just don’t call yourself a Christian, because you obviously haven’t read a Bible.
By Jack
August 7, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
CEOs should be paid on performance.
FMLA = Feed My Lazy A$$ (another way for some to work the system)
By Shannon, M.Div.
August 7, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Drunk, do you not realize that a number of low-income people are already on public assistance that the rest of us pick up the bill for?
You folks who are capitalism-worshippers, you have a choice. You either accept that government has a role in preventing the exploitation of workers (because it IS in any given corporation’s interest to exploit workers, which to me is the heart of why pure capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity), or you accept a great deal of unnecessary human suffering through poverty.
You want to be a pure capitalist, fine by me. Just don’t call yourself a Christian, because you obviously haven’t read a Bible.
By The72John
August 7, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
FMLA = Feed My Lazy A$$ (another way for some to work the system)
You realize that the leave-time guaranteed by FMLA is unpaid?
By 2D
August 7, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Shannon… Don’t you think it is unfair to start throwing around the religious guilt???
At what point should the government start instituting Christian, or any religious ideals? Once you make that insinuation, you open the door for all kinds of laws that I’m sure most folks wouldn’t want passed (i.e. should we be punished for coveting our neighbor’s a$$)???
All puns aside… I understand where you are coming from and suspect that many of the “capitalism-worshippers” you chide actually give tremendous amounts of their resources (time, skills, money) to their churches and/or other charitable organizations.
NetBanker hit it on the head… We need to go through another societal change. Once upon a time companies and employees were a symbiotic relationship and that still exists today, although in far fewer cases than before (or than we should see). Until that happens, I honestly do not think you will see much progress. Look at Chicago. Target is going to scuttle their city store plan.
What is the better scenario for inner city Chicago???
Target comes in, pays the current minimum wage and folks get jobs and better access to Target.
-OR-
Target skedaddles, those jobs go elsewhere and access to Target is discouraged.
By Jack
August 7, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Drunk, do you not realize that a number of low-income people are already on public assistance that the rest of us pick up the bill for?
What’s that got to do with it? Minimum wage like social security was never meant to live on. Should we all take a cut in pay so that those who choose to stay in low-paying jobs get more for less work? Where does the insentive to improve go if we do that? Goes out the window.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Do we have two Jacks here? Because it sure seems like it sometimes…
By Mara
August 7, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Net - “Nickeled and Dimed” was a great book. It very clearly told the story of the working poor. I liked it so much I picked up “Bait and Switch” a few months ago. Highly recommend it.
Drunk - do you really not understand that raising wages above the present market rate prices low-skilled workers out of the market, encouraging them to be on public assistance that the rest us pick up the bill for
though I dispute “market rate” and “minimum wage” being the same thing, for arguments sake let’s say they are. Even then, statistics show that your premise is fallacious. States with higher minimum wages have, on average, lower unemployment.
By Gale
August 7, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
The biggest mistake is expecting minimum wage to support a family. It should not. This has happened because we allow people to believe they should be able to thrive on minimum wage. A responsible adult should consider his/her ability to support a family before starting one.
Also, I read many comments that consider one may be trapped in minimum wage because one has no time or money to get more education. I say hard work is still valued in this country. A job should be paid what the work is worth. I would be happy to pay the garbage collector four times the minimum and that Walmart greeter could be gone for the value I see there.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Jack? Do you realize FMLA is Family Medical Leave Act? It’s that lil ol’ law that requires your company to hold your job while out on maternity leave or to care for a sick relative.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Renee, why don’t you tell me what you think the effects on society would be if a significant percentage of Americans descended even deeper into poverty?
John, I think the effects would be detrimental to society. Now, I won’t sit here and tell you that I think minimum wage is the end of all that be all of evils. Ideally, I would like for bigger business, even smaller businesses to do the right thing. And the right thing for GE may not be the right thing for Home Depot. So I don’t think the government should be making those decisions. I think more of the pressure should go onto the businesses. Like I said before, if a business is unable to retain employees, or they make employees mad and they start embezzling or any number of scenarios, that causes the corporation to make substantial profits, that will dictate how they run their business.
If I feel like paying my employees $1.00 an hour, and nobody comes to my business etc, because of how I treat my employees, my employees are barely working and/or stealing from me, and my company falls under, that should determine. Now I don’t think anyone should be paid 1.00/hrly but I also don’t think that my cashier should be paid $20.00. As a business owner I should be able to make that determination without government intervention.
FMLA = Feed My Lazy A$$ (another way for some to work the system)
Jack, you can’t be serious.
By Mara
August 7, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Yes, Shannon. Please don’t bring religion into it. Most of us have no desire to mandate laws based on any religion. If you believe in a certain doctrine, well and good. But to say that a particular religious belief should be a reason to make laws…that’s just wrong. What ends up happening is your belief of what is “christian” comes up against a capitalists belief in what “christian” means. Obviously one then becomes a “good” christian and the other a “bad” christian…we have enough of that nonsense going on with the “morality” legislations…
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Do we have two Jacks here? Because it sure seems like it sometimes… No kidding. I was wondering that too…or if there were meds involved ;)
Mara…that book really opened my eyes to the plight of the working poor. I had definitely been in that camp of ‘get a new job’ yet never considered what that would entail. It is just another example of walking a mile in another person’s shoes before passing judgment.
By Archie
August 7, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
You can’t be so naive as to believe that every single person has an opportunity to be as successful as every other person.
I really like that statement 72John. My wife has a masters degree and she can’t do what Renee does going into an interview. Renee, you are blessed, and let me be clear that I am not mad at you, we just disagree. If I didn’t have parents that supported me I don’t think I would be where I am today because there’s no way I could have obtained a second degree and worked without their support and so many don’t have that support and there’s nothing society can do except at least mandate a minimum wage. A degree is not a magic potion according to Dave Ramsey and Robert K.(author of Rich Dad,Poor Dad). Most people need to become financially literate but I think as a nation we need to address the minimum wage issue and the greed issue. I think what Billy suggested earlier while radical would improve society. See 10:35 am post by Billy.
By 2D
August 7, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Jack… Folks on minimum wage are not doing “less” work. I would in fact argue that their jobs require more work that most of us. Unfortunately the skill level required is minimal and that means the potential labor pool is high.
That is the deciding factor for offered salary… Poetntial labor pool.
I know lots of folks who take jobs making not much more than minimum wage b/c that is the entry level salary for a particular field. How much do you think green newspaper reporters make??? Or folks who want to work in the advertising industry??? Or fashion industry??? Not much b/c there are so many more applicants than positions.
Same w/Target, McDonalds, WalMArt, etc. Raising the minim wage doesn’t just alter the business for those employers, it alters the business for all employers.
By Mara
August 7, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
Net - yet another law that penalizes companies for an employees bad choice. After all, they choose to have babies and they choose to personally take care of their sick relative instead of hiring someone to do it. Why should the business be forced to accomadate them for making choices not conducive to furthering their career? If they want the job, they should have to be there to do the job…
(sarcasm implicit - )
By Toad
August 7, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Minimum wage like social security was never meant to live on.
Where do you get this? Social security was intented for poor people without pensions — for example, widows who never worked.
By Drunkoncommonsense
August 7, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
To my refuters: Technological innovation will always occur, and will occur due to market competition. The elevator operators I speak of would have been priced out of the market eventually, by changing technologies and the natural market evolution of the wage rate. A government increase of the wage rate forced the corporations to move along their demand curve for elevator operators and bear the risk of the high fixed cost of investing the new technology of mechanical elevators. This forced people out of the labor market prematurely. To pay Walmart workers more increases the company’s marginal cost, forcing them to charge higher prices or lower their demand for labor. 72 John, do you understand this principle? Even though a large corporation may not shut down because of the capital they already have invested in present locations of a business, it results in making operating costs higher. Prices determine a business’ costs (see Hayekian triangle). The minimum wage is an artificial increase of the market price for certain types of labor (not the same thing.)
By Billy
August 7, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
I say hard work is still valued in this country.
It is. Often at or around $5.25/hr.
This is my biggest problem with the Horatio Alger BS. Not everyone can work their way up. If a factory has 25 workers, not everyone gets to become foreman. There’s a limited number of openings higher up the ladder.
By Toad
August 7, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Wal-Mart often doesn’t give employees 40-hours a week so it can avoid giving benefits, and changes the working hours from week, making it hard for an employee to hold another job.
By Mara
August 7, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Billy - If a factory has 25 workers, not everyone gets to become foreman.
WHAT!? You mean there isn’t a glut of 60-80K managerial positions out there?
oh, btw…laughed my butt off at the “Often at or around $5.25/hr.” bit :^D
By Renee
August 7, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
My wife has a masters degree and she can’t do what Renee does going into an interview. Renee, you are blessed, and let me be clear that I am not mad at you, we just disagree.
I don’t think anyone is mad at me, but let me make a point. I don’t know what type of job anyone on this blog has. But let’s say that John is an IT person, Archie is a customer service rep and Mara is a “professional evil laugher”.
Any one of you can go into an interview and “demand” a salary. Maybe, I should rephrases the word “demand”. There is a salary range that I have, and I don’t go under for any reason. So when a job is offered, if they refuse to meet MY expectations of what I think I am worth, then I don’t have to take the job, and I WON’T take the job. Your wife, Archie, can name her salary. She may go into company A, and they won’t meet it, and company b might not, she may have to interviw until she gets to Company Z, but someone will meet it. Now, here in Vermont, I had to make adjustments, because they don’t pay here like I was paid in Vermont,but I didn’t take the first thing that came along either. It’s all about decision making, for me anyway.
I was going to speak on the Christianity bit by Shannon, but it was already so well covered by everyone!!
By Theresa
August 7, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
I have just been reading the previous comments - Toad, I love your idea of a maximum wage. It truly is absurd that a CEO can pull in 50 million a year and pay a high percentage of the employess $5 an hour. Link the two together and I think a fair balance will emerge. And yes, I understand that the CEO has accountabilities well beyond what the WalMart cashier has, but, without that cashier, the CEO is not going to get his paycheck either…. I know it is off the subject - but I feel the same issue applies to those in the entertainment and sports industries. I don’t care how many homeruns you hit in a season, you simply ARE NOT worth 20 million a year.
By Toad
August 7, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
I’m glad 72John mentioned “meritocracy,” which is really a myth. Those of you who think that any Wal-Mart worker can become a manager, are you aware of the lawsuit brought by female workers against Wal-Mart for not promoting women?
By Theresa
August 7, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
I have just been reading the previous comments - Toad, I love your idea of a maximum wage. It truly is absurd that a CEO can pull in 50 million a year and pay a high percentage of the employess $5 an hour. Link the two together and I think a fair balance will emerge. And yes, I understand that the CEO has accountabilities well beyond what the WalMart cashier has, but, without that cashier, the CEO is not going to get his paycheck either…. I know it is off the subject - but I feel the same issue applies to those in the entertainment and sports industries. I don’t care how many homeruns you hit in a season, you simply ARE NOT worth 20 million a year.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
they choose to personally take care of their sick relative instead of hiring someone to do it. Geez..what was I thinking?! Yes! We should all make sure that strangers take care of our ill family members instead of helping them ourselves. It will be better for the economy to hire someone because the money will go to a company and another employee…who is probably making more than minimum wage. And we should completely subordinate ourselves for the good of our employer because we know that we can rely on our employers to take care of us instead of our families.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
This is my biggest problem with the Horatio Alger BS. Not everyone can work their way up. If a factory has 25 workers, not everyone gets to become foreman. There’s a limited number of openings higher up the ladder.
I can guarantee, that many people don’t even WANT to move up the ladder. And some are perfectly content with their wages, imagine that.
Many years ago, I used to work at Bellsouth, as a phone rep, making arrangments with customers to pay their phone bills.
One thing I found amazing was the amount of people that worked there, that had been there 25 years or 30 years as a customer service rep. And when I asked them how to move up or why hadn’t they moved up I just got the “deer in the headlights” look.
In a factory or in any job for that matter, there is not space for everyone to move up to CEO, or foreman, or supervisor or whatever, but you never know your potential or what opening can be made or given until you try.
By The72John
August 7, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
To pay Walmart workers more increases the company’s marginal cost, forcing them to charge higher prices or lower their demand for labor. 72 John, do you understand this principle?
I have an MBA, so I can throw economic terms around, too. Of course, I also realize that “marginal cost” is the change in cost incurred by adding one more unit of production and is separate from an operating cost such as labor.
Even though a large corporation may not shut down because of the capital they already have invested in present locations of a business, it results in making operating costs higher. Prices determine a business’ costs
Good boy. However, because Wal-Marts central proposition is the providing of lower prices, it’s unlikely that they would choose to run the risk of driving off a relatively elastic consumer base by increasing prices when they are already profitable. Compared to Wal-Marts net income, the cost of a small increase to labor is relatively tiny.
Add to that the cost benefits reapped by a decrease in absenteeism, fewer retraining costs, increased morale and productivity, and you wind up with very little NET cost, if any.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Renee — Everyone can set a salary range, but we’re not talking salary as much as we are wages. I know it’s somewhat of a semantic issue, but I think it’s an important distinction. The people we’re talking about aren’t the one’s who have money in their 401(k)s and Roth IRAs and whatnot. These are the paycheck-to-paycheck sort, the ones who cannot afford to pass up a job the moment one becomes available. I agree with what 2D says about the labor pool — it’s bigger. Because it’s bigger, these people can’t pass up a job when it’s offered. Someone is going to end up taking it at that wage.
I realize that is the basis for our “free” market system, but we have to take some measures to insure it doesn’t run rampant. The unskilled, manual labor jobs — these are the jobs being taken by this wave of immigrants, much like any time in our country’s history. While I am a pretty progressive guy, we have to acknowledge that something must be done about this.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
I feel the same issue applies to those in the entertainment and sports industries. I don’t care how many homeruns you hit in a season, you simply ARE NOT worth 20 million a year. Theresa…right on! I find it sad that we pay ball players millions a year for basically contributing nothing meaningful to society yet we pay police officers, firemen, and teacher next to nothing.
Mara is a “professional evil laugher” Mara….I think Renee is gunning for your job! ;)
By Jack
August 7, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Wrong Toad. It was supposed to be a suplement. (sic)
Theresa. As long as people are willing to pay that much top go to a game, they will keep making it. Sickening isn’t it?
By Mara
August 7, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Um…Jack? You’ve got it backward dear. Pensions were supposed to supliment Social Security (well, the Old Age Assistance part of Social Security anyway…)
In the United States, before 1935, very few workers in the United States worked in jobs covered by pensions. Of those with coverage, many never received any benefits because their benefits were not guaranteed. The original Social Security Act was passed in 1935. It had two components: a Social Security retirement benefit that applied only to workers and a welfare program for the needy elderly called Old Age Assistance. The Social Security system has been reformed many times but it has always sustained the basic concept of social insurance.
Social Security gained full national commitment in 1950 when it was decided to phase out the Old Age Assistance program and make the Social Security benefit more adequate. Benefits were increased by 77 percent and the payroll tax rate was raised to 6.5 percent on a phased-in basis. This move was partly in response to an expansion in private pensions that were being won by unions in collective bargaining agreements. Such pensions were usually designed as a supplement to Social Security benefits. Employers supported the increase because Social Security was considered cheaper than private pensions, because the payroll tax costs were transferred to workers by lowering wages and because the decrease in the welfare based Old Age Assistance program meant there would be less demand for general revenue which was then drawn significantly from corporate income taxes.
By Toad
August 7, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Renee, not everyone can wait until they hit an employer who can pay the desirable wage they want. Many highly accomplished, intelligent, educated people were laid off by my company when we merged with another. Managers in their fifties were laid off and stayed out of work for a long time (thanks to a generous severence package) looking for equivalent jobs. Several had to take lower paying jobs with less responsibility. I’m sure they had a certain wage they couldn’t go below, but had to just to make a salary.
By Archie
August 7, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Renee I don’t think everyone can make a demand or just work for what they want because as where people live or what they do sometimes depends on things like marriage,health,etc. I am that IT person and I definitely could do better in NC than I can in South Carolina but I like my family situation. I think if you’re going to be in business with employees you ought to pay a minimum wage and of course you know I am for universal healthcare, but please noone start in on me about that because as the regular bloggers I have been a long time proponent of that. It is ridiculous that someone earning what Martha Stewart does would go to jail for what amounts to 20 dollars for someone in her income bracket and speaks to greed and lack of compassion as 72John suggests. To me we have become like that hit song by Beyonce’ “ME,MYSELF,and I”.
By Mara
August 7, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Mwahahahahahahaha! Let ‘er try! :^p
I will share with you a Tom Mullin quote - “Laughing at ourselves is possible when we are able to see humanity as it is - a little lower than angels and at times only slightly higher than apes.”
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
As long as people are willing to pay that much top go to a game, they will keep making it. Sickening isn’t it? I’m not sure that attendance at games has as much to do with it as the amounts paid for endorsements, etc. Even so, I do find the price of tickets to events (sports, theatre, live music) are out of control. I’m not getting much different a product than I did 10 years ago, but the prices are dramatically higher. And when it comes to concerts I’d rather pay less and just hear the person/group sing than pay all that extra to see these multi-media, cirque du soleil-like extravagances. I wonder if you could demand a reduced ticket price if you’re blind because you can’t even SEE the stage show?
By Renee
August 7, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Toad, I understand that too, but I don’t think because that situation presents itself, that the government should then step in to implement the salary, unless of course you are taking a job with the government.
I understand, better than anyone, “doing what you have to do” but I don’t agree with the Government making salary guidelines. If you take into account that people have low iq’s, big families, can’t live on the salary etc…when do you stop raising it? Seems like with all the problems listed today, my fellow bloggers believe minimum wage should at least be $15 or more.
Mara - nice try but….I gave you a taste of my skills last week!!!
By The72John
August 7, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
I’d rather pay less and just hear the person/group sing than pay all that extra to see these multi-media, cirque du soleil-like extravagances. I wonder if you could demand a reduced ticket price if you’re blind because you can’t even SEE the stage show
Have you ever SEEN a live Cirque de Soleil show, Net? They are amazing and worth every penny ;-)
By Jack
August 7, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Hey Net, I heard the cheapest ticket to Madonna’s show was $200.00. For me to pay that, they would have to bring John & George back from the dead and have all four of Beatles play at the Fox.
By Toad
August 7, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Renee, I’m just refuting your statement that someone’s wife (Archie’s?) can demand the salary she’d like. Bait and Switch by Barbara Ehrenreich deals with the problem of middle aged people who find themselves unemployed and unable to obtain a job similar to the one they lost.
I’m not tying this in with the minimum wage or the government stepping in.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
John..I have been to several Cirque shows and agree that they are amazing. I’m willing to pay the cost of the show because that is what I’m there for. The thing is I’m going to a concert for the music not to see a huge stage performance that costs enormous amounts of money to put on and move around from concert venue to concert venue.
Jack..the range I saw for Barbra Streisand at Gwinnett was $135 to $735. I know she doesn’t perform often, but there is no way I would pay that amount.
By Toad
August 7, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
I would love to see a show priced at $200 have no one show up because the price is ridiculous.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Toad..thank you for the name correction of the author! Well at least I got the book title right.
By Renee
August 7, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Toad - I think I said in my previous comment that maybe I should take the word “demand” back. My point was this. You have your own personal expectations regarding salary, and you know what you will and won’t take. And because your skills mandate that you make $6, $7 or even $10/hrly, I don’t feel it’s then up to the government to then step in to tell the employer that your skills mandate $6 to that employer but he should then pay you $10. That’s all. I’m against government intervention in so many facets, this being one of them.
I do feel like I can “demand” a salary, and the employer can “offer” a salary, and I can choose whether I take them up on the offer or turn it down. Either way, it’s my decision, and it doesn’t make one a slave because they are making minimum wage.
I can see this argument would still continue no matter how high the minimum wage goes, because no matter what some people will not be satisfied and think it is too low.
By The72John
August 7, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
I understand, better than anyone, “doing what you have to do” but I don’t agree with the Government making salary guidelines. If you take into account that people have low iq’s, big families, can’t live on the salary etc…when do you stop raising it? Seems like with all the problems listed today, my fellow bloggers believe minimum wage should at least be $15 or more.
No one is suggesting that the minimum wage should provide the kind of income that much more skilled positions do. C’mon, Renee, you know better than to fall into the hyperbole trap. How does increasing the minimum wage by a couple of dollars an hour sound like increasing it to $15?
The idea of a “living wage” is that it should provide enough money to feed, clothe and shelter yourself. It doesn’t take into consideration luxury items or fancy cars or any of those things - it merely is meant to ensure that someone can survive.
It’s important to note that the trend of corporations to focus only on their share prices begins to affect the middle class as well. Real wages for the middle class have remained flat for several years now. Growth in wages and benefits are solely attributable to increases in health costs and contribute 0 to real income.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Jack, I’d pay $200 to see Madonna’s show. Of course, the mock crucifixion would have to be a real one…
By chuck
August 7, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I know you were being sarcastic, but you were almost right on with this comment you made:
I agree with Segars and Leslie; screw ‘em if they don’t have skills. Why shouldn’t we work ‘em for nothing if we can? And screw their kids too! Whata we care that they don’t have health care, decent food, and the things the middle class take for granted? And let those CEO’s and politicians continue raising their salaries; I mean, who’s really doing the work here? Yay, capitalism! Yay, taking advantage of anybody we can! Yay, greed! I mean, we gotta have somebody to do the sh— work now that slavery isn’t legal anymore, don’t we?
Capitalism is about keeping costs low so that a business maximizes its profits. Businesses that don’t make profits don’t stay in business very long. What happens to those jobs. If you raise the minimum wage you put people out of work. Businesses will make fewer people work harder. That doesn’t sound real compassionate to me.
I know being the socialist that you seem to be, you think that everybody should make the same. The problem with that is that it doesn’t work. When there is no incentive, human nature takes over and productivity ALWAYS goes down. While it may be legal for a city to do so, it makes no sense. If they don’t make EVERYBODY do it they will probably lose the inevitable lawsuit. If you can make a better wage somewhere else…go for it!!!
By 2D
August 7, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Why would anyone want a maximum wage law??? All that does is tell me that no matter how talented I am or how much I contribute, I will reach a forced plateau. Talk about the glass ceiling. That’s great for motivation.
Unfortunately, people get paid based on the value of their talent to the employer, not to society. If it were reversed soldiers, firefighters, teachers and police officers (in no particular order) would get the highest salaries. Ballplayers generate enormous amounts of revenue and there are very few people who have their skillset. As important as WalMart cashier may be, virtually every human being with a pulse and of legal age is qualified to be a cashier. Thus the ballplayer gets paid millions and the cashier $5.25/hr. That is not too difficult.
BTW… Ballplayers make tons of primarily money due to TV deals. NY and Boston have high payrolls b/c they get more TV Revenue than everyone else. That in turn sets the market and raises the salaries for everyone else. So, if you don’t want athletes making the big bucks, stop watching the games on TV, the revenues will decline and salaries will drop accordingly.
By 2D
August 7, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
John… Does raising the minimum wage $2-3/hr make it a “living wage”???
Also… The definition of “living wage” is different for singles versus, people with children. Should a single mother with 3 kids make more for the same job as the college student working their way through school???
By Renee
August 7, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
You’re right John, that was quite an exaggeration, and I do know better.
I guess we will agree to disagree.
By Toad
August 7, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Why would anyone want a maximum wage law??? The maximum wage is a proposal that the highest earning employee (CEO) can’t make more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. If the CEO wants more, the lowest salaries would need to rise.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Businesses that don’t make profits don’t stay in business very long. Not entirely true. A company could stay in business for a very long time at a break-even run rate.
OK, totally off topic, but did anyone else read that article in the Sunday AJC about the decline in the numbers of people getting married in the U.S.?
By Billy
August 7, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Capitalism is about keeping costs low so that a business maximizes its profits. Businesses that don’t make profits don’t stay in business very long. What happens to those jobs. If you raise the minimum wage you put people out of work. Businesses will make fewer people work harder. That doesn’t sound real compassionate to me.
I agree. And slavery is the epitome of capitalism. The problem with your line of thought is that you talk about businesses like they are inevitably the victims. They are not. “OK, we can raise wages 25%, but I’ll have to let half of you go. That means each of you will be doing twice the work for a fourth more in pay.” Bunk. We’re not talking a huge shift in costs here. We’re tlaking, for the most part, about the fatcats not taking all the tuna. When Fatty McBlubbers gets a $400 million retirement from Exxon, the company has no defense if anyone, even the lowliest janitor, is making less than $15 an hour.
I know being the socialist that you seem to be, you think that everybody should make the same. The problem with that is that it doesn’t work. When there is no incentive, human nature takes over and productivity ALWAYS goes down. While it may be legal for a city to do so, it makes no sense. If they don’t make EVERYBODY do it they will probably lose the inevitable lawsuit. If you can make a better wage somewhere else…go for it!!!
No one here is advocating everyone be paid the same. But the disparity between executive pay and average worker pay has increased tenfold between 1980 and today. And executives are not worth that much. I have a much greater incentive to be productive if I’m making $15 an hour with benefits than I do if I’m making $10 an hour and none. Tommy the Janitor will be far more productive if he’s getting $10 an hour than if he’s getting $5.25.
BTW — “Socialist” is not nearly the insult you think it is. Most of the industrialized world has more socialized programs than we do, and we lag sorely behind the majority of them in everything from education to healthcare.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Does raising the minimum wage $2-3/hr make it a “living wage”???
It’s a step in the right direction.
The definition of “living wage” is different for singles versus, people with children. Should a single mother with 3 kids make more for the same job as the college student working their way through school???
The single mother will likely be getting welfare anyway. The college student will not. Besides, if we had a national healthcare program one of the single mother’s biggest expenses would be taken care of.
By ipvoutjx buvmqdprf
August 7, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
lxkctfjo gmxsnf stqkeg ajhmpkxv bqeugcwrm gpazicn fkrzl
By Toad
August 7, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Perfect example of a company that didn’t make a profit for a long time — Amazon.com’s stock price kept going up and they didn’t even break even for a number of years. But due to the influx of investors’ funds they held on until they could make a profit. Personally, I consider them the Walmart of books since they are partly responsible for independent book stores going out of business.
By Billy
August 7, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Businesses that don’t make profits don’t stay in business very long.
Not entirely true. A company could stay in business for a very long time at a break-even run rate.
And when they don’t stay in business while breaking even, it’s largely due to the fact that (a)the people at the top don’t want to put their time into something that will not make them richer, and (b)they personally can still make money, depending onthe way the company is set up, even while the company itself is failing.
By The72John
August 7, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
I know being the socialist that you seem to be, you think that everybody should make the same. The problem with that is that it doesn’t work. When there is no incentive, human nature takes over and productivity ALWAYS goes down.
Can we say “Strawman”, anyone? Since no one is talking about paying everyone the same, this is nothing more than your typical neo-con “if you want to destroy it relate it to socialism and liberalism” nonsense.
Though why I expected anything else from ChristoFacist, I have no idea.
By Joe
August 7, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
I recommend a Living Wage, which would be significantly higher than the current minimum wage. Where would that come from? If you reduced the average CEO’s wage by a small amount, it would not hurt their lifestyle, and they would have better paid workers.
By Joe
August 7, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
I recommend a Living Wage, which would be significantly higher than the current minimum wage. Where would that come from? If you reduced the average CEO’s wage by a small amount, it would not hurt their lifestyle, and they would have better paid workers.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Most of the industrialized world has more socialized programs than we do, and we lag sorely behind the majority of them in everything from education to healthcare. Interesting phenomenon isn’t it? Conservatives tend to attack these programs as ‘librul’ and denigrate them, yet in those areas they are handing us our as$es on a plate.
By NetBanker
August 7, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Somehow this just seemed appropriate today…
“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the wine I drink I feel shame Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the vineyards and all of their hopes and dreams . If I didn’t drink this wine, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered.
Then I say to myself, “It is better that I drink this wine and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver.” ~ Jack Handy
By Mike
August 7, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this
Guten Tag!!! Bacteriology Journal, Bed Child Older Wetting, Affiliate Program Saqles,
Hru… :-)
By tludv fwtvhxy
August 7, 2006 08:17 PM | Link to this
yjnxcoet vocu jnpemudr ejcknolwg niwog lbverg qurghdka
By Mara
August 8, 2006 07:10 AM | Link to this
Well folks, I’ve been volunteered for training classes for the rest of the week. (sigh) Ah, well…job security I suppose. Have fun, talk to ya next week sometime.
By Renee
August 8, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
Mara - MWAHMWAHMWAHAHAHAHAHA!! LOL, have fun, good luck!
By 2D
August 8, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Billy… Your response didn’t answer the question or at least it didn’t answer the basic premise???
It was proposed that we have a “living wage”. A wage that would cover the basic needs of the individual. I merely pointed out that “living wage” is different for each individual circumstance. In your scenario, some individuals would be on government assistance even with a “living wage”. Doesn’t that seem to be defeating the purpose??? Shouldn’t the goal of any “living wage” be to get people off of government assistance???
Toad… You didn’t answer the question at all. You clearly defined your proposal, but didn’t say why people would want it. Your proposal links all salaries together. As a worker at any level (other than the very bottom), I can’t think of why I would want that.
Any plan like that would obviously include tie ins at every level, not just the CEO to the bottom. Sucks, all businesses don’t have CEOs. Therefore, even as someone in the middle, my compensation would be linked to everyone else. I don’t want that. I want my compensation tied to my ability, work ethic and contribution. Your plan removes incentive for all workers except the CEO.
Why would the person at the bottom of a companies food chain work to better themselves or increase productivity if they knew their compensation would increase every time the CEOs salary increased??? Quick answer… Most wouldn’t.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
2D — Yes, the idea is to get people into jobs so they don’t need assistance. But a single mother with three kids is likely to need that assistance anyway. Are you saying that if we can’t get everyone off welfare then we shouldn’t worry what anyone is paid?
Anyway, to better answer your question, I hope — The hypothetical college student and single mother of three should make the same amount for the same work, all other things being equal. (Experience, hours, etc)
By The72John
August 8, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
The purpose of a living wage is to ensure that the person working is able to survive on that wage. Creating hypothetical situations where a single person has five children is a red herring attempt to discredit the entire idea.
By lozen
August 8, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
72John, Can we say “Strawman”, anyone? Since no one is talking about paying everyone the same, this is nothing more than your typical neo-con “if you want to destroy it relate it to socialism and liberalism” nonsense. Though why I expected anything else from ChristoFacist, I have no idea.
Ain’t that the truth? Didn’t Jesus operate like a socialist? Some members of his disciples provided the finances to support the whole group. Mary Magdalene supported Jesus and the disciples. Or was Jesus just a deadbeat? I’m sure if he were here today, not working, just wandering around preaching being supported by a woman, Chuck would be ready to just “screw the deadbeat!”
By 2D
August 8, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Billy… The two points you brought up mutually exclusive.
Second point first. I agree with you that the two people should make the same amount of money for doing the same job. Not doing so would be illegal.
First point second. I simply question the concept of a “living wage” if it doesn’t remove that person from government assistance.
I am trying to keep my mind open to this concept and want someone to show me a quantifiable benefit to this idea. Just the facts Billy. I am with you on the moral angle of paying people more, but the government should not be making their decision based on that. We talk about not legislating morality all of the time so if that is the cruxt of the issue, I question the proposal. Tell me how forcing an employer to pay a much larger minimum/living wage provies tangible benefit and how those benefits outweigh the drawbacks. If you can’t, then I would not be able to support that type of government intervention.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
John… My example was not a red herring, nor was it hypothetical. The example is real and simply a question to better understand how you would implement such an idea.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Lozen… I’m not sure if you want to bring Jesus into the discussion. Doesn’t that open the door to interpretations of his various other teachings that may or may not support views you have on other issues???
I liken it to the comment I made to someone yesterday about bringing Christianity into the discussion. We should not be making points based on the b/c too many folks have too many different views and interpretations of their faith.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
John… My example was not a red herring, nor was it hypothetical. The example is real and simply a question to better understand how you would implement such an idea.
Well, yes it was, on both counts. As I said, the purpose of a living wage is to ensure that a single person working a minimum wage job earns enough money to survive. It is impossible to encompass every single possible family combination and permutation and establish a wage requirement that satisfies them all.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Lozen… I’m not sure if you want to bring Jesus into the discussion. Doesn’t that open the door to interpretations of his various other teachings that may or may not support views you have on other issues???
Sign number one that we’re dealing with a new fundie. How wonderful. Please leave.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
John… Thank you. You just answered my question, although you didn’t really want to.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
2D — I don’t feel they are mutually exclusive. And this isn’t legislating morality anymore than makingmurder and rape illegal is legislating morality. Legislating morality is making homosexuality illegal because you happen to think it’s a sin. There’s a far cry between requiring humane treatment of employees and throwing someone in jail because he happens to like men.
A $2-3/hr pay increase might not get that single mother with three kids off government assistance. It might, however, get that single mother with two kids off government assistance. And this wouldn’t be near as much of an issue were Wal-Mart not using unethical practices like limiting an employee’s hours worked so they don’t have to pay them benefits.
Regarding bringing religion into it — I agree that we shouldn’t do that. I think the original poster did it, though, because many of the people who are vehemently anti-wage increases and pro-business are the same ones who proselytize here and elsewhere. Take Randy, for instance — constantly talking about Jesus, but makes his living preying on people who are in financial tight spots. Not very Christ-like. While I think we should leave religion out of this (and pretty much every other issue), I believe that if someone is touting a policy that is in contradiction to the religion they are always preaching, then we should point out that hypocrisy. I think the poster who originally brought up religion may have just been making a pre-emptive strike of sorts using this train of thought.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
John… How is asking someone to not bring religion into the equation a sign that you have a new fundie???
Sounds to me like you do not want anyone who actually asks probing questions into your ideas.
Perhaps in spite of your education, there isn’t much substance behind your spouting. You really should take a page from NetBanker’s BLOG strategy. Come with some real substance. Give us some thoughtfully considered ideas and a few details. I have read some of NB’s ideas and while I may not totally agree, I absolutely understand the concept and am even able to find some common ground.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Sounds to me like you do not want anyone who actually asks probing questions into your ideas.
No, that would be your “Jesus doesn’t agree with you on other issues comment.”
John… Thank you. You just answered my question, although you didn’t really want to.
How did I answer your question? If the purpose of the living wage is to ensure that a person working can survive, then how is it germane to bring up an example of a five-member family unable to support itself on a living wage?
You are attempting to invalidate the concept by making it mean what you want it to mean, rather than addressing it for what it is.
By Toad
August 8, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
2D — The reason I proposed the maximum wage is to point out that companies that cry “we’ll go out of business” or “we’ll have to raise prices” if the minimum wage goes up, often pay their CEO (or highest paid employee) millions of dollars in salary and bonuses. I think the statistic is that CEO’s receive 400 times as much as the average worker. If the top executive’s compensation is limited to a certain percentage of the lowest worker I don’t see how that affects all employees, other than in a positive way. Are you saying you wouldn’t like a hike in pay across the board for all employees?
Your argument that workers wouldn’t have an incentive to be more productive because their salary would rise anyway because the CEO wants more money doesn’t hold water. This is like saying don’t give a cost of living raise annually because it wouldn’t be an incentive to work harder.
By blablabla
August 8, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Question for the group:
I just moved from Fulton into DeKalb at the beginning of July, and this morning went to vote in the run-offs, but was told I can’t vote since I wasn’t registered in DeKalb as of a certain date (since I was still living in Fulton and hadn’t moved).
Doesn’t it seem odd that I can’t vote in the election even though I am registered in DeKalb (today), live in the district, own property in the district and i’m sure am accruing property taxes on it? When did we start saying there are cutoffs in when you’re allowed to vote? Why do I have less voting rights if I moved to a district yesterday than I would if i’d lived in a district for ten years? Something seems fundamentally flawed here to me. What do you guys think?
By The72John
August 8, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Good point, Toad - something that ties the highest salary to the lowest salary would have absolutely no impact on middle management salaries. There are several good companies out there that voluntarily follow this kind of guideline, by the way. It is very possible to be competitive, capatalistic, profitable and MORAL at the same time.
However, the average businessman today would rather spend Sunday’s in church going on and on about how moral they are, and Monday through Saturday trampling over anyone who gets in their way.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
*When did we start saying there are cutoffs in when you’re allowed to vote? *
Er…always? There has always been a deadline by which you have to be registered in a particular precinct in order to vote. The voter registration office has to have time to get you on the voter rolls to help prevent voter fraud.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Bla, if you weren’t registered to vote in your current precinct for the primaries, I doubt they’d let you vote there in the runoffs. And if you didn’t vote in the primaries, I know that you can’t vote in the runoff. I guess moving from one county to another is no different from moving from one state to another — if you didn’t vote in the Georgia primaries because you lived in Florida, then you won’t be able to vote in any runoff when it occurs.
Of course, I’m not sure how or if any of that applies to your situation…
By Archie
August 8, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Good point, Toad - something that ties the highest salary to the lowest salary would have absolutely no impact on middle management salaries. There are several good companies out there that voluntarily follow this kind of guideline, by the way. It is very possible to be competitive, capatalistic, profitable and MORAL at the same time.
I agree with this John and the name of the company that follows this principle is called Kingfish,I think. I was not going to bring it up but since you did…
By blablabla
August 8, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
There has always been a deadline by which you have to be registered in a particular precinct in order to vote.
sure, i understand that they’re trying to prevent fraud. here are my real problems with this siuation:
1) i have less rights than somebody else because i just moved there. on it’s face, this is preposterous (to me). it’s just as preposterous that my rights are marginalized because the gov’t can’t maintain voting records in a 21st century fashion and put a freeze on things five weeks before an election.
2) i’m sure i’ll pay property taxes for the entire period i owned property in dekalb county, even though i wasn’t fully “vested” in my rights. smells like taxation without representation…
bear in mind i walked in with a state issued driver license with an in-district address on it, as well as a utility bill. i was refused to be able to vote because I registered three days after the arbitrary “cutoff”.
it just seems really stupid and unfair to me.
By blablabla
August 8, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
billy - you can vote in the runoff even if you didn’t vote in the primary. but if you registered as an R in the primary, you can’t vote in the D run-off, and vice versa.
By Toad
August 8, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
According to the front page of the AJC you can vote in the run-off even if you didn’t vote in the primary.
By Renee
August 8, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
bla - While I understand why the initial rules were instituted to prevent fraud etc, looking at it from your point of view I also understand where you are coming from. It seems really ridiculous, especially factoring in that you can prove that you are an actual resident. No matter when you entered the district, you are definitely part of the district, and any decision made directly affects you and you should have a say in that. However, the whole runoff, primary problem still exists…and that’s understandable also.
By Renee
August 8, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
According to the front page of the AJC you can vote in the run-off even if you didn’t vote in the primary.
Okay, I must have confused that with the inability to switch your “political status” in the run-off.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
John… You answered my question by stating a single individual.
Also… I never said that Jesus did or did not agree with anyone. I merely pointed out that some people can take religion (in this example Jesus’ teachings) and make it reflect whatever point of view or moral paradigm they want it to. That is why I find it better to leave religion out of the discussion and deal with the cold hard facts.
Toad… You are correct. You can vote in the run-off if you didn’t vote in the primary, but you can’t vote in the runoff if you voted in the other party’s primary (i.e. if you voted in the Republican primary you cannot vote in the Democratic primary).
Also… Thank you for clarifying tying simply the highest and the lowest salary. That leaves all of the plebes like myself in the middle free and clear. Now, how would you define which “companies” this would cover? Would it be based on revenue??? size??? industry??? private / government???
For example, would a private high school need to follow the same rules ExxonMobile???
Or how about the Mayor’s salary being tied to the garbage collector???
Billy… Please do not compare minimum wage legislation with that against rape and murder. Those issues are not even in the same ball park. Quite frankly they are not even in the same universe. I can’t imagine that someone on this BLOG has not already called you out on that.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
ME too, Renee.
By Chilao
August 8, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
If there was truly a free-market for lower-end wages, (which there actually is now for all but the minimum wage arena) would the ball-park minimum go UP as a result of companies competing for labor, or go down, as a result of companies trying to minimize labor costs? And back to that ole economics, when labor (or any commodity) exceeds demand…
hmmmmmmmmmm…..
By The72John
August 8, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
I can understand the frustration, but I can also understand why the elections board would want to have a finalized roster of voters prior to the beginning of an election.
By blablabla
August 8, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
I can understand the frustration, but I can also understand why the elections board would want to have a finalized roster of voters prior to the beginning of an election.
i’m with you, but i don’t think my rights come second to their desire of having a final voting list.
By Jack
August 8, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Back when I was in highschool, we all got various jobs with ease. Cashier, bag boy, stock ETC. When my boys were in highschool they had a very difficult time getting work because the minimum wage jobs were taken by immigrants & single moms. They were bummed out but like I told them, If you were the boss, who would you hire? Someone trying to feed their family who would show up everyday or a highschool kid who just wants party money and may or may not show up for work? No brainer.
The rant has ended, go in peace.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
2D — How was that wrong? My point was that rape and murder are both illegal and immoral, but we do not consider them “legislating morality”. There are certain things that are for the common good. By your logic any labor reforms were enacted because of “legislating morality”. My point was that while I feel it is a moral imperative to make sure that people have a safe-safe work environment, I do not consider it legislating morality. And it’s not legislating morality itself that is the problem, but how you decide whose morality to legislate. Again — treating your fellow man humanely is far different from arresting two men because they were haveing sex.
Murder, rape, theft…all of these are morally wrong. Yet we legislate them. If you can say wage laws are legislating morality, then I can go a step further and say that pretty much all laws are legislating morality.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
having sex
By The72John
August 8, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
John… You answered my question by stating a single individual.
Ok, but you haven’t actually clarified what your “question” is. In fact, your entire argument seems to be “Because it won’t solve EVERY problem, we should ignore it”.
For example, would a private high school need to follow the same rules ExxonMobile???
Now you’re just being silly. This seems to be a pattern with you - take an argument and then go to ludicrous extremes. As with Chuck, it’s basic strawman tactics…
You understand that the disparity that exists between inflated CEO salaries and average worker salaries doesn’t exist at smaller institutions, such as private schools?
By 2D
August 8, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Billy… We legislate them (murder, rape, theft) because those actions infringe upon the basic personal rights of life or property.
A discussion could be had to determine whether or not a lack of a minimum wage infringes upon those rights.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
John… The question was very simple. Would two people in different life siutations be paid the same wage for the same job if “living wage” legislation was enacted??? And then I provided two realistic examples where the necessary funds would be drastically different. You stated the wage would be for a single individual. Question answered. Leave it alone.
Also… When someone proposes tying together the highest and lowest salaries, I immediately wonder how something like that would be implemented in real life. I apologize for taking the next step, if that offends you.
In actuality, I used a single hyperbolic example more to get a chuckle out of the the readers than anything else. Of course, you ignored the other couple of items which are totally plauisble and relevent.
By Jack
August 8, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Hey Bla, did a delivery occur yet?
By Billy
August 8, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Well let’s have that discussion. How can anyone acquire property to begin with when he’s making $5 an hour? Poor people are far more likely to be the victims of crime against both property and person…
By The72John
August 8, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Of course, you ignored the other couple of items which are totally plauisble and relevent.
You’ll have to point those out to me. I haven’t seen that anything you’ve posted is either plausible or relevant. All you’ve managed to contribute, as far as I can tell, is irrelevance disguised as “taking it to the next level”.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
John… The question I asked was: How would you define which “companies” this would cover?
Would it be based on revenue??? size??? industry??? private / government???
Would you exempt small businesses??? Would you exempt government??? Would you exempt private entities reserved for the public good like hospitals and schools???
Billy… Thank you for at least entering into a discussion. You pose a good question. The answer is it would be very difficult for people making $5/hr to acquire property. But, it is legally possible, even if unlikely.
I would like to ask you a different question: Has the government addressed its responsibility if they ensure the acquisition of property is legally possible to all citizens regardless of the likelihood.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Would you exempt small businesses??? Would you exempt government??? Would you exempt private entities reserved for the public good like hospitals and schools???
And I pointed out that the disparity in salaries that this particular theoretical law was intended to address only exists in very large corporations. Which part of that are you having the hard time understanding?
By NetBanker
August 8, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Wandering off topic again here, but has anyone see the TVKart article in the business section? Are parents really that unable to control or handle their kids that now they need TV to babysit them while shopping?
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/0808bizkarts.html?cxntnid=biz080806e
I’m starting to think that we need to bring back a good whuppin’ as the standard disciplinary method for children under 10. Have you seen parents trying to reason with their 3-5 year olds? HELLO!! Children don’t have a highly enough developed brain or skills to be able to be reasoned with at those ages. This is why a solid swat on the as$ works! They can quickly enough be trained to understand that when Mom/Dad says “You’d better behave or you’re going to get a spanking” that if they don’t straighten up right quick their bottom is going to be sore. And don’t give me that namby, pamby ‘it’s not good for the kids psychological development’ BS! For hundreds of years kids were spanked and the race survived with seemingly more integrity and manners than one sees in the past 20 years when some idiot decided that children are more fragile than a Waterford wine stem.
By Renee
August 8, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Okay, everyone, let’s break for a joke. Courtesy of my email buddies, but tooo funny!!
A big Texan stopped at a local restaurant following a day roaming around in Mexico.
While sipping his tequila, he noticed a sizzling, scrumptious looking platter being served at the next table. Not only did it look good, the smell was wonderful. He asked the waiter, “What is that you just served?”
The waiter replied, “Ah senor, you have excellent taste!
Those are called Cojones de Toro, bull’s testicles from the bull fight this morning. A delicacy!”
The cowboy said, “What the heck, bring me an order.”
The waiter replied, “I am so sorry senor. There is only one serving per day because there is only one bull fight each morning. If you come early and place your order, we will be sure to save you this delicacy.”
The next morning, the cowboy returned, placed his order, and that evening was served the one and only special delicacy of the day. After a few bites, inspecting his platter, he called to the waiter and said, “These are delicious, but they are much, much smaller than the ones I saw you serve yesterday.”
The waiter shrugged his shoulders and replied, “Si, Senor. Sometimes the bull wins.”
Now back to your regularly scheduled debate!!
By blablabla
August 8, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
no, jack. we’re still 7 weeks out, altho based on today’s visit we may have a c-section in about 5 weeks if little bla doesn’t get into proper position.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
I would like to ask you a different question: Has the government addressed its responsibility if they ensure the acquisition of property is legally possible to all citizens regardless of the likelihood.
If you rewrite this so it’s less tortuous, this question would read “Is it OK for the government to prevent the poor from owning property”.
Are you high?
By 2D
August 8, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Can I get an AMEN for NEtBanker…!
By 2D
August 8, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
John… Can you define a very large corporation???
Is it based on revenue??? Is it based on profit??? Is it based on number of employees???
By Chilao
August 8, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
Amen to Net.
Cute joke Renee, but since bullfights are in sets of SEVEN, there would be at least 7 servings, so they could still be out of servings but only after serving seven. LOL (no, I am not really that retentive) just know alot about the ART/ballet of bullfighting.
By Chilao
August 8, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
(okay I am not quite this old but it fits with NetB’s) The other day, someone at a store in our town read that a methamphetamine lab had been found in an old farmhouse in the adjoining county and he asked me a rhetorical question, “Why didn’t we have a drug problem when you and I were growing up?” I replied: I had a drug problem when I was young:
I was drug to church on Sunday morning. I was drug to church for weddings and funerals. I was drug to family reunions and community socials no matter theweather.
I was drug by my ears when I was disrespectful to adults. I was also drug to the woodshed when I: disobeyed my parents, told a lie brought home a bad report card did not speak with respect spoke ill of the teacher or the preacherdidn’t put forth my best effort in everything that was asked of me.
I was drug to the kitchen sink to have my mouth washed out with soap if I uttered a profane four letter word.
I was drug out to pull weeds in mom’s garden and flower beds and cockleburs out of dad’s fields.
I was drug to the homes of family, friends, and neighbors to help out some poor soul who had no one to mow the yard, repair the clothesline, or chop some firewood; and, if my mother had ever known that I took a single dime as a tip for this kindness, she would have drug me back to the woodshed.
Those drugs are still in my veins; and they affect my behavior in everything I do, say, and think. They are stronger than cocaine, crack, or heroin; and, If today’s children had this kind of drug problem, America would be a better place.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Is it based on revenue??? Is it based on profit??? Is it based on number of employees???
My god, you are obtuse, aren’t you? The point is that none of the entities you describe as being problematic have the issue at hand, not the definition of a large corporation.
By NetBanker
August 8, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
*I would like to ask you a different question: Has the government addressed its responsibility if they ensure the acquisition of property is legally possible to all citizens regardless of the likelihood.
If you rewrite this so it’s less tortuous, this question would read “Is it OK for the government to prevent the poor from owning property”.*
John…how did you get your question rewritten out of the first one? They are entirely different in that in your question is posed from a stance of actively blocking someone whereas the first approaches the government’s role as ensuring equal access regardless of likelihood that one will take advantage of that access.
You approach applied to the question of “Has the government addressed its responsibility if they ensure marriage is legally accessible to all citizens regardless of the likelihood?” would yield “Is it OK for the government to prevent gay people from marrying?”
By The72John
August 8, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
John…how did you get your question rewritten out of the first one? They are entirely different in that in your question is posed from a stance of actively blocking someone whereas the first approaches the government’s role as ensuring equal access regardless of likelihood that one will take advantage of that access.
Perhaps my aversion to this newcomer has tainted my interpretation of his badly-worded question.
By lozen
August 8, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Here’s the letter I just sent to my congressional reps. I hope some of you will do the same.
“Minimum wage workers have been waiting a decade for a raise that can help lift their families out of poverty. The only thing stopping minimum wage workers from getting a $2.10 an hour pay raise is the unwillingness of the Republican leadership of Congress to allow consideration of a clean minimum wage bill with no poison pills and no strings attached. I urge you to stop the political games we’ve seen and see to it that Congress holds a REAL vote to raise the minimum wage.
America’s working families will not tolerate the cynical political ploys congressional leaders have pulled to block a minimum wage increase. Dooming the minimum wage increase by tying it to budget-busting estate tax breaks for the very rich was an outrage. Minimum wage workers should not have to get in line behind Paris Hilton and the Wal-Mart heirs to receive the long-overdue pay increase they rightly deserve. The Republican estate tax proposal would blow a $753 billion hole in the federal budget, and working people like me would have to pay that price—with budget cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, veterans programs and unemployment insurance—so the 8,200 wealthiest estates in America could get an average tax break of $1.3 million.
It is far past time to raise the minimum wage. No more games. No more poison pills. No more cynical maneuvers. Raise the minimum wage now.”
By NetBanker
August 8, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
John..do we know for sure this is only a problem for-large corporations? I think the point 2D is making is that in order to apply any rule governing compensation one must declare the criterion of organizational size to which the rule will apply. The other thing is that the questions are an attempt to determine your position on whether highest/lowest wage links are applicable to ALL organizations or only certain organizations. If only certain, then which ones? By what measure are you making your determination? If the decision is subjective then it will be inherently unfair.
By lozen
August 8, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
When big, profitable companies refuse to pay their fair share of health care costs, everyone suffers. Their employees often join the ranks of the uninsured. The cost of health care rises for everyone. And the responsible companies who cover their workers must compete with the companies who don’t pay their fair share. Some state legislatures are taking action by introducing versions of the Fair Share Health Care Act, which would require large employers to pay their fair share of the cost of providing health care for their employees.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
John..do we know for sure this is only a problem for-large corporations?
Which group, other than a large corporation, do you suppose has the capability of paying its top office $25 million a year plus incentives and its line workers minimum wage? Can you name one?
I think the point 2D is making is that in order to apply any rule governing compensation one must declare the criterion of organizational size to which the rule will apply.
And my point is that this is a moot consideration. The key factor is not the size of the organization or its function, but the disparity in pay between the top salaried worker and the lowest wage slave.
I don’t actually have an opinion on this particular topic, but his obsessive dwelling on irrelevant points is driving me nuts.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Regarding size — How about any business that does not qualify as a small business?
I can’t help but think of the episode of the West Wing where Peter Scolari plays the executive of a computer chip company. They discover a flaw and have to do a massive recall. He tells the President that he and his executives will take no pay for two years before they even think of laying anyone off. Yeah. Like that’d happen.
By NetBanker
August 8, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
“The key factor is not the size of the organization or its function, but the disparity in pay between the top salaried worker and the lowest wage slave.” Well you DO have a criterion which is salary disparity.
Which group, other than a large corporation, do you suppose has the capability of paying its top office $25 million a year plus incentives and its line workers minimum wage? Can you name one? Off the top of my head I can’t, but given that your criterion is the spread between highest and lowest salary does the actual dollar amount of the top paid person really matter? What I think I’ve heard you say is that there should be some link between the two which means there would have to be some factor applied (highest can not be more than X times lowest). Couldn’t/Shouldn’t that factor be applied to all companies even though it may actually only impact smaller companies? If you don’t someone will find a way to exploit the decision.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Yeah. Like that’d happen
Actually, it happened at my company. The CEO and President both cancelled their salaries for a year, and then turned around and spent $35,000 out of their personal bank account to pay a small Christmas bonus to each employee.
By LOCO
August 8, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the regurgitation of the talking points memo, Lozen. Do you have anything original to say or are you a parrot?
What is the “fair share” of the cost of your health care that should be paid by your employer?
By Billy
August 8, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Wow, John. Let me ask — did this inspire employee loyalty, or did you all just loaf around since you knew you were getting a little more money?
By blablabla
August 8, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
john - you didn’t take a salary for a year? how noble. (wink)
By The72John
August 8, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
What is the “fair share” of the cost of your health care that should be paid by your employer?
Possibly you’re missing out on the fact that some large companies have deliberately avoided paying health benefits because they expected Medicare to pick up the slack. In other words, robot, they expect YOU to pay for THEIR employee’s health care.
By Toad
August 8, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Lozen, good letter.
By Scalia
August 8, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
John—-hahaha…robot!!! That’s hilarious.
By Jack
August 8, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
$2.10 an hour more will not raise them out of poverty. $12.00 maybe.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
*What is the “fair share” of the cost of your health care that should be paid by your employer? *
There is also a real benefit to a company for providing health care. They don’t just do it because it’s a benefit needed to attract good employees. Healthy workers are happier and more productive, and workers who aren’t worried about their families getting ill are happier and more productive.
By Toad
August 8, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Universal health insurance would give everyone insurance so people won’t have to depend on their employers. Some people who are self-employed or work for small businesses pay exorbitant premiums. Employer-provided health insurance can keep people tied to an employer because if they get a new job, their medical condition may not be covered due to a pre-existing condition clause.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
$2.10 an hour more will not raise them out of poverty. $12.00 maybe.
$12 is about $25,000/a year, which is much higher than the official “poverty level”. But I understand what you mean - $2.10 doesn’t seem like a lot, but imagine how much it would seem to the people getting it.
By LOCO
August 8, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Nice try, The72John, but you didn’t answer the question.
Do you believe that Lozen would prefer to have taxpayers pay for her health care, or for her employer to pay for it? From her post, it is pretty clear that she wants employers to pay for health care. So my question is a pretty valid one.
There is also a real benefit to a company for providing health care.
Of course there is, but the benefit you describe has nothing to do with who provides health coverage, be it the government, the employer or the individual. There’s no additional utility for it being provided by the employer. Obviously the cost is different based on who provides the coverage, but that is an entirely different issue.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Of course there is, but the benefit you describe has nothing to do with who provides health coverage, be it the government, the employer or the individual.
What in the world do you mean, that has nothing to do with who provides it? If it represents a significant benefit to the business, then the business has a vested interest in supplying it.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Of course there is, but the benefit you describe has nothing to do with who provides health coverage, be it the government, the employer or the individual.
On the contrary. As someone who has paid $600+ a month for health insurance for two adults and an infant, I can say that it most certainly does make a difference who is paying. I am far happier when my employer picks up some of the tab. Which he cannot, since we’re so small.
By Toad
August 8, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
As for TV’s in kiddie carts, I agree about reasoning with a child. Just say “no, no fruit loops.” What bothers me more is how prevalent TV is in kids’ lives. There’s a TV in their bedrooms, there’s a TV in the mini van. Can’t the kid have a moment’s peace? How will they ever develop any imagination if they’re not allowed to just observe the world and think?
By LOCO
August 8, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
If it represents a significant benefit to the business, then the business has a vested interest in supplying it.
Businesses may have a vested interest in seeing that the need is supplied, but not necessarily that they would be the one to supply it. Your statement is also somewhat contradictory to your previous post that companies are avoiding paying for benefits, since insured employees are obviously of such an interest to companies.
Sadly, you still haven’t answered the original question. Nor has Lozen.
On the contrary. As someone who has paid $600+ a month for health insurance for two adults and an infant, I can say that it most certainly does make a difference who is paying. I am far happier when my employer picks up some of the tab. Which he cannot, since we’re so small.
Billy, You are confusing the cost with the benefit. The benefit that you are a happy, protected, insured employee, does not change based on who actually paid for the coverage. If you got coverage for $1,000 a month that was identical to coverage that cost you nothing, you would not be any more or less happy with your coverage, but you might be more or less happy with the cost of that coverage. Your benefit did not change, but your cost sure did. I trust you see the difference.
By Jack
August 8, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Remember Lon Chaney’s “Wolf Man” at that time that was considered hi-tech special effects.
By The72John
August 8, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Your statement is also somewhat contradictory to your previous post that companies are avoiding paying for benefits, since insured employees are obviously of such an interest to companies.
It’s not contradictory because it deals with two different things. One is the intangible benefits that providing health care to employees offers, and the other discusses a practice that some large companies use to cut costs and increase profits. Most companys DO offer health care.
What WAS your original question, Who SHOULD pay health care? It’s not a matter of should, now is it? I, and most others, would not choose to work for a company that didn’t offer health care. Therefore, if a company wants to attract good employees it will provide health care benefits.
You took lozen’s observation about company’s deliberately not providing health care and thus passing the cost on to an already-strained health care system and tried to turn it into yet another “Anything a Corporation does is right, no matter what it is” ultra-conservative piece of blathering.
By 2D
August 8, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Net… Thanks for the assists earlier today. You are much better at putting things into words than myself.
By Billy
August 8, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
LOCO, I trust you see that, for me, low cost equals a benefit. I would be much happier with my health coverage were my employer picking up at least part of the tab. Yes, having health coverage is comforting, but not when it means you may not be able to cover your mortgage.
By NetBanker
August 8, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this
What bothers me more is how prevalent TV is in kids’ lives. There’s a TV in their bedrooms, there’s a TV in the mini van. Can’t the kid have a moment’s peace? How will they ever develop any imagination if they’re not allowed to just observe the world and think? Good observation, Toad! Seems like too many people I know use the TV to occupy their kids. Heck, it seems like kids today don’t know how to play or occupy themselves at all. There is a generation of kids being raised who is going to think that it’s someone’s job to keep them engaged all the time and that one must be doing something because they’re never allowed to just do nothing. Do any of you remember spending time on summer afternoons just lying on your back and finding shapes in the clouds?
By Xuan
August 8, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this
Hi!!! Adrian Michigan,
buy… :-)
By 2D
August 9, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this
NetBanker… I remember summer afternoons of going to the park and playing games with other kids. No gated communities. No structure. No minivans toting me around town. Just a group of kids who would walk or ride their bikes where we would play football or basketball or baseball.
By LOCO
August 9, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this
My original question was what is the “fair share” that your employer should have to pay for your health care.
This was based on Lozen’s observation that state governments are stepping in and requiring large companies to pay their “fair share” of health care. I was curious as to what she, or others for that matter, think is the magical number for fair share.
It was pretty simple. You are the one who wanted to bring up a related, yet side point that companies sometimes shirk their employee obligations, a behavior they most certainly do engage in.
You took lozen’s observation about company’s deliberately not providing health care and thus passing the cost on to an already-strained health care system and tried to turn it into yet another “Anything a Corporation does is right, no matter what it is” ultra-conservative piece of blathering.
That could not be further from the truth. Look at what I argued – that the benefit is the same no matter who provides the coverage. Other than that, all I’ve done is ask a question and state that Lozen’s earlier post looks to be unoriginal talking points. Nowhere have I said that “anything a corporation does is right”. For the most prolific blogger around to not be able to keep track of a simple question, let alone answer it, all while accusing somebody else of blathering is, ahem, humorous to say the least.
By LOCO
August 9, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Billy - you’re still confusing cost with benefit. Having extra money in your pocket is not a benefit of health coverage. Having extra money in your pocket is a benefit of somebody else bearing the cost of the health coverage for you.
By 2D
August 9, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Billy… If your employer does not provide some sort of health care, I would question the reason why. I have several small business owners as either friends or family and they all provide some sort of health care package. It may not be the same as a large company but a benefit exists even when the operation is only one or two individuals.
LOCO… I too am curious about “fair share”. I am sick and tired of people on both sides speaking in such generalities. So I did a little research. I know my “family” package costs me $150 pre tax every couple of weeks. If I were to purchase that coverage on my own, it would cost a little over $400 every couple of weeks. So…
My company pays about $250. I pay about $150 and is pre tax so the real dollar amount is roughly $100. So…
total cost = $400 my cost = $100 government/employer pays 75%
That sounds fair to me.
By blablabla
August 9, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
no more mckinney!!! looks like my vote yesterday wouldn’t have mattered much since she got smoked. this guy said it best…
DeKalb County resident Lonnie Smith, 49, helped propel Johnson to victory Tuesday night.
“Cynthia McKinney doesn’t need to win,” said Smith, a businesswoman who voted for Johnson at Avondale Middle School. “She is an embarrassment to the law, an embarrassment to being female, an embarrassment to being black and an embarrassment to being a Christian. She’s loud and obnoxious and exhibits no sense of class.”
By Renee
August 9, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
No matter her constant errors, I will always have a soft spot for McKinney.
By blablabla
August 9, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
why, renee?
By Renee
August 9, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Tramadol, I can relate completely….ummm, maybe I should do work if I’m talking to advertisements.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Having spoken with her and worked lightly in her campaign office ages ago, as well as always living in her district, I know that she is a good person, with good intentions. I like a lot that she has stood for, and the in your face attitude she has had. To say that she hasn’t done anything good in office I think is really unfair. Unfortunately, it is the way of life, that you can do 20 good things and one bad, and the bad will always outweigh the good.
Having said that, I think unfortunately her “reign” has come to an end. If I was her, I wouldn’t run anymore, but I’m sure she will never give up. Sometimes, it takes a fresh, new face in office, and people want something new. I think the last straw with her was the fight with the Capitol officer, which I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but it was a poor call of judgment. Something like that occuring on my job between me and a security officer, would have probably caused me to lose my job. I think what matters is the people chose who they wanted, and I hope someone is there to advise Cynthia where she went wrong (although she should know herself).
By Billy
August 9, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
2D — We’re working on it, but with 5 people includnig the owner, it’s been a little rough finding a way to get into a group plan.
Billy - you’re still confusing cost with benefit. Having extra money in your pocket is not a benefit of health coverage. Having extra money in your pocket is a benefit of somebody else bearing the cost of the health coverage for you.
Right. But you can’t completely separate the two. It’s like saying that you’re happy with the Hummer but not happy with how much it takes to fill the thing up. The two are inextricably linked. If I have coverage plan X, yes, I’m going to be happy (or not) with the plan regardless of who pays for it. But I’ll be happier in general if I get to keep an extra hundred or two a month to buy luxuries like food.
And I’m not suggesting we start requiring my employer to provide full health coverage or anything. He’s got a lot of his personal assets invested in this company, and having to buy coverage for 4 people without being able to buy into cheap group coverage would be prohibitively expensive. But the Wal-Marts of the world are another story. Everyone talks about how big they are — well, a company with that many employees should be able to buy coverage as cheaply as anyone. The fact that they make the conscious effort to schedule employees hours so that they don’t have to provide coverage is deplorable.
By blablabla
August 9, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
renee -
i’ve never had any personal interaction with her but i’ve just never been a fan. it’s less the politics, and more the attitude and behavior that is such a turnoff to me. i prefer it to be about the constituents and not the congresswoman. candidly though, given how she has behaved in public, i’d prefer not to have any interaction with her.
agree wholeheartedly that she probably shouldn’t run again, but that she probably will. i think we could use a fresh face, and one that isn’t tainted one way or another with the history/baggage that she carries with her.
By Mamoru
August 9, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
That evil Wal-Mart corporation. It has gone to far this time.
Wal-Mart is considering the option to sale E85 fuel at its stores in conjunction with Murphy Oil Company. All those Mom and Pop stores won’t stand a chance as Wal-Mart is insuring its supply.
(Now the sarcasm is over with.)
Why not Wal-Mart? They big oil companies wont make the switch at their stations.. Like it or not, Wal-Mart dose have brand recognition. This can only be a good thing for a move to alternate/modified fuels, which should increase the building of infrastructure. The quicker the move is made, the better.
A Right Wing wacko.
By Mamoru
August 9, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
That evil Wal-Mart corporation. It has gone to far this time.
Wal-Mart is considering the option to sale E85 fuel at its stores in conjunction with Murphy Oil Company. All those Mom and Pop stores won’t stand a chance as Wal-Mart is insuring its supply.
(Now the sarcasm is over with.)
Why not Wal-Mart? They big oil companies wont make the switch at their stations.. Like it or not, Wal-Mart dose have brand recognition. This can only be a good thing for a move to alternate/modified fuels, which should increase the building of infrastructure. The quicker the move is made, the better.
A Right Wing wacko.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
The fact that they make the conscious effort to schedule employees hours so that they don’t have to provide coverage is deplorable.
The employees should leave and go elsewhere or put pressure on the employer to offer those benefits. If the business was compromised by no employee retention, or just plain no employees, I bet Walmart or anyone else would change their policies. I just don’t want the government stepping in.
By Kyle
August 9, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
-back from whitewater rafting and no broken bones - on to this week’s topic
-i gotta say that, at first glance, i disagree with this notion of tying the CEO’s salary to that of the lowest earning employee. let’s say the lowest earning employee is the janitor of the building. why should that janitor make more money cleaning company A’s building than another janitor makes cleaning comany B’s building. both janitors are doing the same work and they seem to be of the same value. furthermore, why should company A’s cleaning services be more expensive than company B’s? both companies are paying for the same service. lastly, just becasue a janitor works for a very successful company that doesn’t mean that he/she is directly responsible for whatever tactic or innovation that has been applied by higher ups in order for that comapny to be successful. this seems as merely being in the right place at the right time with the janitor simply dragging on the coat tails of the people who are actually responsible for the companies success. i’m sorry, but a janitor should not be compensated any more than other janitors simply b/c he cleans the building of a successful company.
now i’m not saying that i am completely comfortable with the current disparity in pay scales. all i’m saying is that at many companies there are several positions that consist of the same duties/responsibilities as at every other company, be it a successfull company, an average company, or a nonsuccessful company (i.e. mailroon, janitor, receptionist, etc…). the jobs performed by people in these positions are not the reason why the company is successful - so why should they reap the rewards? i don’t think the people in these positions should be paid more simply b/c they are at a successful comapny. i am also not saying that the CEO should be allowed to take all the money and pay everyone else peanuts. the ones who should be assured the right to share in the company’s profits are the people in the successful organizations that are actually responsible for the innovative ideas or new tactics that are being used which differintiate them from other companies and in turn is responsible for the company’s success.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
bla - unfortunately, I can definitely understand your position, and it’s very unfortunate for Cynthia. If you’re tainted as a messenger, nobody will ever hear your message. And, I’m really interested to see how Hank will do in the election!
By Billy
August 9, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Wal-Mart is considering the option to sale E85 fuel at its stores in conjunction with Murphy Oil Company.
Good. Perhaps if people start buying their E85 they can get their employees’ kids off MedicAid.
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Glass if so right.Not only are few jobs lost , other wages rise!So vote Democratic! And Buffett,Gates ,Soros and Turner not only give to charities ,but love to pay their taxes and are for the Paris Hilton tax.By Billy
August 9, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
The employees should leave and go elsewhere or put pressure on the employer to offer those benefits. If the business was compromised by no employee retention, or just plain no employees, I bet Walmart or anyone else would change their policies. I just don’t want the government stepping in.
Can Wal-Mart’s employees unionize? What would happen were they to try to do this?
And why is the government stepping in inherently a problem? Most great advances in our society have been a result of government stepping in. Abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, Civil Rights — sometimes the government has to prod people into treating each other humanely and doing the right thing.
lastly, just becasue a janitor works for a very successful company that doesn’t mean that he/she is directly responsible for whatever tactic or innovation that has been applied by higher ups in order for that comapny to be successful.
Just because a CEO works for a very successful company that doesn’t mean that ne/she is directly responsible for whatever tactic or innovation that has been applied by underlings in order for that company to be successful.
this seems as merely being in the right place at the right time with the janitor simply dragging on the coat tails of the people who are actually responsible for the companies success. i’m sorry, but a janitor should not be compensated any more than other janitors simply b/c he cleans the building of a successful company.
Why not, when many CEOs are compensated a ton for standing on the shoulders of their grunts?
By blablabla
August 9, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
renee - given the demographics of the 4th district, i think hank will win.
as for cynthia, it is unfortunate, but i think she made the bed she lies in.
By Scalia
August 9, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
I make a running joke that eventually we will be able to get everything at Wal-Mart. I waiting for them to start selling coffins, burial plots, tombstones, and such. You will be able to buy the cheapest funeral at Wal-Mart.
Plus, there will be Wal-Mart schools. Wal-Mart car dealerships (I actually heard the dealership thing is happening in Texas).
By lozen
August 9, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Kyle, interesting you bring up the janitorial personnel - I’ve been thinking about that as we have this discussion. The woman who cleans our offices has been with the company 15 years. She’s the salt of the earth and goes above and beyond her job description for us every day. She would do anything for anyone. She was 16 when she took on the responsibility of raising her siblings when her mother died. She’s in her mid 60’s and works much harder than I do and can’t retire because she’s never made a lot of money. I make a lot more money than she does I’m sure. My work really isn’t more important than hers IMO. Who wants to work in a filthy environment? We just don’t pay people who clean or take care of the elderly or children or serve us our food because we don’t value their work and I think we should. They’re not considered as “important” as we are because they’re doing “menial work” and don’t have any special training or education. Without them our day to day lives would would be quite unpleasant. The whole hierarchy of who gets valued the most and therefore paid the most in this society is crazy.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Scalia - Sams Club, which as you know is affiliated with Walmart, does sell caskets. Some stores have displays.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
lozen - what you have described, in my opinion, is a good person. Although she may be the “salt of the earth”, I think there is definitely a hierarchy of positions within a company, hence the differing salary and compensation packages. While I feel my job is definitely important to the day to day operations of the company, I can be replaced a lot quicker, and a lot easier than a VP or another executive position. And a janitor may be easier to replace than any of us. Yes, cleanliness in a job is a must, and anyone who provides that, definitely provides to the well-being, overall morale, and the importance of the company. However, all jobs are not the same.
Would you say then, that since nobody’s job is more important than another, that one blanket salary and compensation package should be given to everyone?
By blablabla
August 9, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Most great advances in our society have been a result of government stepping in.
this might be the scariest thing i’ve ever read on this blog.
By Archie
August 9, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
And why is the government stepping in inherently a problem? Most great advances in our society have been a result of government stepping in. Abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, Civil Rights — sometimes the government has to prod people into treating each other humanely and doing the right thing.
This paragraph is so true Billy and it seems as if people have forgotten that the government is simply, people just like you and me.
Also there is company here in America that does tie salaries of it’s employees together. Management can only earn so many times the lowest employee. Of course this company is run by foreigners but we as Americans can learn something from this. If the lowest guy has to earn 50,000 for me to earn 300,000 I’ll take that. I wish I knew the exact name because it was featured on the evening news.
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Iozen,it is time to value such jobs. The market cannot do the job,so government , our engine for the common good ,has to step in . Some Republicans know that. Some.
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Iozen,it is time to value such jobs. The market cannot do the job,so government , our engine for the common good ,has to step in . Some Republicans know that. Some.
By Kyle
August 9, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
“Just because a CEO works for a very successful company that doesn’t mean that ne/she is directly responsible for whatever tactic or innovation that has been applied by underlings in order for that company to be successful.”
-Billy…i agree somewhat (CEOs are always faced with important decisions), but that’s why i said “the ones who should be assured the right to share in the company’s profits are the people in the successful organizations that are actually responsible for the innovative ideas or new tactics that are being used which differintiate them from other companies and in turn is responsible for the company’s success.” i have no problem with the people who are actually responsible for the company’s success to be assured the right to share in that success. what i do have a problem with is the people who do the exact same thing as people at other, possibly less successful companies, getting paid more simply b/c others at their company are successful.
“Why not, when many CEOs are compensated a ton for standing on the shoulders of their grunts?”
-the ability of a CEO can drastically effect the course of a company for better or worse. are you telling me a janitor/receptionist/mailroom person can drastically alter the future of a corporation through their performance? CEOs must make very important decisions for a company and take responsibilty for those decisions. if he/she doesn’t perform and is not bringing anything to the comapny, he/she can be voted out. and just to reiterate, any of those “grunts” that are causing the company to be successful should share in the success.
“We just don’t pay people who clean or take care of the elderly or children or serve us our food because we don’t value their work and I think we should….The whole hierarchy of who gets valued the most and therefore paid the most in this society is crazy.”
-the hierarchy comes down to supply and demand. if you offer something that few other people can offer, you will be highly valued. its not that the work of janitors are not valued. i agree that having a clean work environment is important, but that’s not the point. it all comes down to the amount of people qualified for the job - the number of possible applicants. i’m sure that the woman who cleans your office is a great person and works very hard, but this doesn’t change the fact that their are countless others that are qualified for her job. supply and demand. if you want to earn more make yourself more unique and marketable - or better yet, make yourself a necessity
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Iozen, such jobs should pay better. As the market cannot fairly evaluate the pay scales for them, the government has to step in.Even some Republicans realize that.Some.
By 2D
August 9, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Billy… While government did have a roll in all of the examples you mentioned, it was individual groups from outside the government that initially drove the process.
IMO, Dr. King, Andrew Young and the countless others I didn’t mention had much more to do with Civil Rights than the government.
Also IMO, the brave women at the turn of the 20th century had more to do with enacting women’s suffrage than the government.
I would also say that the movements you mentioned are not equal to enacting minimum wage legislation. The examples you provided were about giving / defining / reestablishing basic legal rights to various groups of people. The minimum wage legislation you are describing does not convey or remove any legal rights to a group of people.
Each person in this country has the legal right to earn as much money as they can, work as many hours as they can and work in any profession that they can. No law restricts this for a citizen of this country (to the best of my knowledge) therefore the government does not have the same role here as they would in the examples you mentioned.
BTW… The same cannot be said for many other countries in this world. They do provide legal restrictions for many or all of the items I listed.
By NetBanker
August 9, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Once again some interesting comments and good discussion today. I’m not sure that I buy into the CEO/janitor comparison. While I realize that the ‘janitor’ could be replaced with another low level position what that other low level position is can make a difference in framing our arguments. I point this out because I’ve yet to work for a company where the janitors weren’t from a contract agency and since most companies lease their office space the janitorial service is provided by the building. The janitor’s salary must be placed in the context of the company for whom he/she works rather than the company which occupies the space which they maintain.
are you telling me a janitor/receptionist/mailroom person can drastically alter the future of a corporation through their performance? On the surface one would not think so, but make no mistake that these people can have immense impact on the future of a corporate. Spilled water in the bathroom not cleaned up in a timely fashion could result in a key player slipping and becoming injured. (This actually happened in a company where I worked to the lead developer on a project) The Receptionist is THE gatekeeper for access. Access could be denied to a prospective client or business partner that results in a missed deal that might have saved a company from financial collapse. The mailroom employee who carelessly handles the mail could end up with a lost contract or maybe prioritary/sensitive information being stolen by a competitor. (The lost proposal happened in my current company and the prospective client chose another vendor due to our ‘lack of response.’ We lost a $3Million deal)
Always be nice to the janitor, security guard, and receptionist where you work. They’ve all helped me out in some small way (like locking myself out of my office with my cell phone and car keys in the office) that either saved my as$ or made my life easier (like the CEO receptionist who used to give me free business class upgrade coupons because I flew for the company all the time while the execs rarely had to travel).
By Billy
August 9, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
the ability of a CEO can drastically effect the course of a company for better or worse. are you telling me a janitor/receptionist/mailroom person can drastically alter the future of a corporation through their performance? CEOs must make very important decisions for a company and take responsibilty for those decisions. if he/she doesn’t perform and is not bringing anything to the comapny, he/she can be voted out.
Google “Carly Fiorina” then we’ll talk about it.
2D, I agree with you about the push coming from outside the government. But that’s how it always is — a group makes the government take notice. AS for rights — I feel that people have the right to not be taken advantage of, and I think our current minimum wage laws allow this to happen.
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
Iozen, your comments about such jobs is well taken.Since the market cannot provide decent wages, government , the agent of common good, has to interfere. Some Republicans know that .Some. As far as health care ,some of the states are trying hard to take care of their citizens .Fir me,a one payer system might be in order.That would not be socialism in the sense of a government takeover,but Americanism-just as American as Henry Clay’s public improvements.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Always be nice to the janitor, security guard, and receptionist where you work. They’ve all helped me out in some small way (like locking myself out of my office with my cell phone and car keys in the office) that either saved my as$ or made my life easier (like the CEO receptionist who used to give me free business class upgrade coupons because I flew for the company all the time while the execs rarely had to travel).
Net, I totally agree with that. I think my argument just comes in on the compensation. I think every job has its component in the overall success of the company, but every component is different, and some are smaller and some are larger. While everyone can be grouped together as employees, their actual position I don’t think can be grouped together. And this I just speak for on the compensation end. Of course, I am not a CEO of anyone’s company, and there is not one person that I would not speak to because of their position, I’m just thinking of it from a strict business comparison.
I think a lot of CEO’s and other executives lose sight of the “smaller” workers, thus having no contact except maybe an all important email or video taped announcement, so this gives them the appearance of being “higher” so to speak. I do think, however, that the CEO is quite important (well understated) to the company, but this is not true for every CEO or every corporation. And the CEO is not the end all of the success or he wouldn’t need anyone else.
Anyway, I have rambling, but my point just still comes to the fact that while a janitor is important to the company, the overall success, his contribution is not as big as maybe the accountants. You may cannot find another good, trustworthy, accountant, but it’s not hard to find a good person who can clean.
By lozen
August 9, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Would you say then, that since nobody’s job is more important than another, that one blanket salary and compensation package should be given to everyone? Renee, I don’t know.
By Archie
August 9, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
-the hierarchy comes down to supply and demand. if you offer something that few other people can offer, you will be highly valued. its not that the work of janitors are not valued. i agree that having a clean work environment is important, but that’s not the point. it all comes down to the amount of people qualified for the job - the number of possible applicants. i’m sure that the woman who cleans your office is a great person and works very hard, but this doesn’t change the fact that their are countless others that are qualified for her job. supply and demand. if you want to earn more make yourself more unique and marketable - or better yet, make yourself a necessity
It comes down to a superiority complex that Americans have never dealt with. What’s wrong with a company paying a janitor 50 grand if they tie their salaries as Billy suggests? I think what Billy has written speaks more to the culture of superiority that Americans have become accustomed to than it does any supply and demand or skill level. The company here in America that does that does not have high turnover and the people really want that company to be successful, but Americans have been trained to have somebody to look down on so we pay accordingly. I am probably one of the few reading this blog with a college degree that worked for the minimum as a janitor with that degree for a short while and I don’t think the janitor should be paid like a Ceo but the vast difference in salaries of management and non-management is crazy. I agree with Lozen in that those type of workers that she describes can be paid more but for the superiority complex in America.
By Kyle
August 9, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
If the lowest guy has to earn 50,000 for me to earn 300,000 I’ll take that.”
-Archie…i won’t take that. judging from the level of pay your comment stated, i’m guessing you aren’t talking about the pay of a CEO of a big company. would you apply this to sales reps at a company, brokers, financial planners? i hope i read this wrong and your answer to my question is no.
-Net…maybe it was a badly phrased question on my part - of course a janitor/receptionist/mailroom person can effect a company if they simply don’t do their job. the point that i was trying to get across was that many higher ups have a greater impact, for better or worse, on the company than the previously mentioned positions. also, i coulldn’t agree more that you should always treat people filling these jobs with respect.
“Google “Carly Fiorina” then we’ll talk about it.”
-you want to make a law based on one extreme case. laws are not made based on the extreme cases, but rather what is happening in the vast majority of instances. outliers are dealt with on an individual basis.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Archie - you think the janitor should make $50,000? Not the manager of environmental services, but the actual environmental service worker??? So, then what do you think your salary should be? I don’t have all the answers, by any means, but HOW would that make it all better??
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Net Banker,thanks for showing the usefulness of janitors. I once had a job in sanitation and was glad for the then minimum wage of $2.50.Sorry,Lozen , for the name misspelling .Archie knows whereof he speaks!
By NetBanker
August 9, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
nobody’s job is more important than another I just can’t agree with this sentiment/statement. While I did just give some concrete examples of how a janitor and mail clerk could majorly affect a company those situations were not the norm. If one looks at standard, daily performance there are some jobs that are more critical (hence more important) than others although that depends on the nature of the company.
I happen to work in financial software and lead the team of Business Analysts who design software solutions that meet the needs of the market, as well as write the functional specifications that define what the system needs to do (flow, fields, functions, edits, business logic, messages, screen layout, etc). Without that information and those documents the developers don’t know what code to write, the QA team won’t know what or how to test the system, the documentation team won’t have the information to create user guides, the sales team won’t have product to sell, the marketing team won’t have product to market.
The building manager’s assistant receives office supply orders, coordinates the janitor, and provides general help within the building. No offense to the assistant, but a business analyst’s contribution to the company is far more important that the assistant’s because without the BAs there would be no product and no company for the assistant to work forr. There will always be some jobs that are mission critical to an organization and some that are not. The janitor’s job IS mission critical to a janitorial services company, but not to the company who hires the services company.
By Archie
August 9, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
I have seen the janitor mistreated and for no other reason than the position he held. I think the need to feel superior is why people even care that a janitor makes 50 grand at company A but at all other companies that same janitor would earn 25 grand at best. With the money people spend to get a degree I can certainly understand the anger if you see an un-degreed person earning nearly as much as you do but that happens even when the person is not the janitor. There was a lady here at work that definitely earned more than a lot of those here with degrees so yes I can understand that need to feel like all of your hard work and money meant something but the world doesn’t necessarily work like that. This woman has now retired and while it may have taken her awhile to get to her salary level, the people coming in with degrees start so much lower. Heck even having more experience doesn’t mean more pay and it probably shouldn’t but to sum it up I have no problem with what Billy posted.
By Renee
August 9, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Generally, Archie, when two people make the same salary, at the same position, and only one is educated, the other one’s experience is taking the place of their education. This is why when positions are posted/advertised they said 4 year degree/or 5 years of verifiable experience, for instance.
But to touch on what you said. My disagreement with the janitor making 50,000/yr has nothing to do with my need to feel superior. I think Net’s explanation at 2:02 said best some of what I was trying to point out (eloquent as always, Net…I see a gleam of a tiara in the distance).
I can’t see for the life of me what business sense it would make to pay the janitor $50,000. What do you then pay your Business Analyst, or Senior Buyer, or Director of Sales, or whatever position you choose.
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Just what do you anarchic capitalists mean by communism and socialism? How does our regulated capitalism that works for all relate to those terms? How can you state that the ACLU is a threat to our real capitalism as opposed to your Spencer- Rand version[ Herbert Spencer and Ayn Rand, lovers of so-called Social Darwinism.]Define your terms ,please, and show how they apply instead of giving knee-jerk responses! Why are you so set on destroying Americanism which works for all instead of the few.Raising the minimum wage does not hurt employment .
By Renee
August 9, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Just to add on, a lot of situations can factor into one’s salary, just like the length of time with the company. Maybe one person was hired at a starting wage of 10.00 and they haven’t moved up the ladder, they have just maintained their position, so in a couple of years they have just gotten two cost of living increases. And now the starting wage is 12.00. The new employee would be making more money under those circumstances.
By Archie
August 9, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Archie - you think the janitor should make $50,000? Not the manager of environmental services, but the actual environmental service worker??? So, then what do you think your salary should be? I don’t have all the answers, by any means, but HOW would that make it all better??
Renee, I was responding to posts made by Kyle,Lozen and Billy. There is a company here in America that says that managers can earn only so many times the salary of the lowest employee. I don’t understand the comment about environmental manager. My point was in support of Billy’s posts and my point is that if a company wants to structure it’s payscale differently than what’s normal in America then said company should do so and it should not matter if the janitor at THAT company makes 50 grand. As for a sales rep they work on commission most of the time,I was an insurance agent for awhile, so you can’t tie their salaries to anyone because they earn a lot or a little. Thanks Morgan-lynn, it was 3.50 in 1987, the minimum wage that is.
Kyle I was just using figures as an example. If you earn 300 grand you earn more than 98 percent of anyone in the country.
By Hich
August 9, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Go!!! Visit Puerto Rico, Car Insurance Company In Maryland, Air International Mile,
—
By lozen
August 9, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Renee, yes, a lot of situations can factor into a person’s salary. For example, most jobs that were considered “women’s” work at some time, pay lower salaries than jobs that have always been considered “men’s” work. Cleaning, taking care of children and elderly, domestic duties, teaching, nursing, secretarial. My job (at the moment) is one of those traditional “female” jobs. My next door neighbor (twenty years younger and no college at all) makes more money than I do with a college degree and twenty more years of experience. His job is a traditionally “male” job. He’s probably not as skilled at his work, simply because I’ve had 20 more years to get experience. I think in the great scheme of things our jobs are equally important to our companies (neither of them are esp important to the overall well being of the world) - and we both make more than teachers in Georgia. It just doesn’t make any sense.
By Kyle
August 9, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
-Billy…my last comment concerning the HP CEO was made before i read a little bit about her. what point are you trying to make by referencing this CEO? she made a business decision to merge with compaq - right or wrong, it was a business decision. the board was unhappy with her performance and asked her to step down, which she did. true, she spent a lot of money while she held the position, but the board held her accountable for her actions by asking her to step down. it seems to me that a board of directors have ample power to hold higher ups accountable (no need for gov’t intrusion). is it her severance package you have a problem with? i admit, its a very, very large number but the amount of her severence package was determined by her contract and negotiations for her to step down by the board (she wasn’t fired for cause). would you have the gov’t put restrictions on our freedom to contract?
“It comes down to a superiority complex that Americans have never dealt with. What’s wrong with a company paying a janitor 50 grand if they tie their salaries as Billy suggests? I think what Billy has written speaks more to the culture of superiority that Americans have become accustomed to than it does any supply and demand or skill level.”
-Archie…superiority complex? really? you really think that is what drives pay scales in our economy, or at least more so than simple supply and demand? i gotta disagree on this point, entirely. cut down on the amount of people who have the ability to clean and janitors pay will rise. cut down on the number of people with the ability to answer a phone and receptionists pay will rise. i think this “superiority complex” is little more than a theorhetical argument that sounds good in debate, but has little to no basis in reality.
“My point was in support of Billy’s posts and my point is that if a company wants to structure it’s payscale differently than what’s normal in America then said company should do so and it should not matter if the janitor at THAT company makes 50 grand”
-by all means. a company should be FREE to make decisions concerning their pay scale - its when you have gov’t laws restricting these decisions that i have a problem.
By Billy
August 9, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Kyle — I recognize that it’s an individual case, but it’s not so uncommon. Ken Lay? Worldcom? Tyco, I think? Corporate malfeasance is rampant.
All I’m talking about is that when a company like Exxon gives Fatty McGee the biggest windfall since God knows when and at a time when customers are being charged $3 a gallon for gas, it’d be nice to know that the lowliest grunt in the company was also seeing record earnings.
By Archie
August 9, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
Renee no one ever admits to having a superiority complex,it’s like admitting that one is a racist or a sexist. It is very difficult to admit fault with one’s self when you don’t have a physical measuring stick. I know that I am short because most people are taller than I am but anyway I was just using 50,000 as a figure. No I don’t think the janitor should be paid more than the manager but if the janitor is paid more than manager at some other company than the one he is working for so be it. I basically don’t care what the other guy gets as long I am treated right. Teachers should be valued more but then I am biased.
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
But some government intervention is necessary. That helps our wonderful economy .Yes, the disparity in wages between the CEO and the lower paid is just too much.And even worse ,if the company pays her so high when others are layed off!
By Billy
August 9, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Kyle — would you have the gov’t put restrictions on our freedom to contract?
Yeah, maybe. An executive can run a company into the ground, causing layoffs numbering in the thousands, but then the company has to pay him/her millions to leave. Yeah, I’m OK with the government saying that you can’t do that.
By morgan-lynn
August 9, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
I am confortable with that also. Signing off .
By lozen
August 9, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
There have to be checks and balances. A company is in business to make money. Many businesses do not care about employees. Every employee can be replaced although it costs the company money to replace someone. A lot of them don’t seem to mind that expense. Especially if that employee has been with the company for years and is costing a lot with benefits, etc. So who is going to keep the company in line to see that they don’t work people to death, lock them up in buildings they can’t get out of when there’s a fire, work 10 year old children 12 hours a day, work people in dangerous circumstances because it would cost them money to make it safe? In a right to work state, our lone representative: the guvment.
By Billy
August 9, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
cut down on the amount of people who have the ability to clean and janitors pay will rise. cut down on the number of people with the ability to answer a phone and receptionists pay will rise.
I agree. But I also think that the supply of people who could be CEOs is rather large, it’s just that executives will not allow such advancement…
By Billy
August 9, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
I was trying to say that executives already on top of the pyramid will not allow such advancement.
By NetBanker
August 9, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
I have seen the janitor mistreated and for no other reason than the position he held. Archie…I tend to agree with you that Americans, in general, have some level of wanting to feel superior to others. My partner owns a cleaning company and when asked tells people “I scrub toilets for a living.” I am, more frequently than I’d like, pressed into service on Saturdays to scrub toilets too. That may explain why I approach people with some degree of humility…it’s a bit hard to think of yourself too haughtily when you’ve been cleaning dirty toilets in someone’s 7,000-12,000 sq. ft. house.
Tough question, Kyle. While I don’t think we should have a bunch of government regulations our own history during the Industrial Revolution and the era of the robber barons should tell us that by nature humans are greedy. Study after study shows that we’ll screw other people in some small way to guarantee more for ourselves. If one looks at the rise in compensation and wealth among what ends up being a very small percentage of the population it looks like we are returning to that same era. That accumulation of wealth has more to do with the other golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules) than the fact that those people have worked harder and earned it. Those at the top have the power to decide how much gets paid in dividends and bonuses and pay raises. The financial benefits of the rises in productivity and worth of companies is skewed to those in control at the expense of those who actually did the work. I think this is wrong, but it’s pervasive throughout American companies so going to work for someone else and thinking it’s going to be different is rather naïve. I would love to believe that people would find our current system morally reprehensible, but reality seems to indicate that the people who could change that system aren’t going to do so until forced.
By RF
August 9, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
So did anyone see the pictures a few weeks back of the house the retired honcho at UPS has? He and his wife basically built a palace. The dang master closet is bigger than my living room! Now I know he probably invested well along the way, but DANG does anyone really need their own chapel and movie theater in the house?? The really sad truth is that the top tier of management makes WAY too much and there is no clear limit on their salaries, perks, etc. I used to work for a school system that paid the superintendent TEN TIMES the average teacher salary. Does she deserve more for her job level and experience? You betcha, but that much more?? Hell, the average maintenance worker made more than I did with my college degree and scads of professional training.
Also, we have to remember that simply raising the minimum wage, even if it were tripled, wouldn’t improve the quality of life of most people living in poverty. There’s an attitude toward money that has to be adjusted before a person from poverty can ever truly improve his or her life. Money alone won’t solve the problem. Look at how much welfare has been reformed and the only people who ever really improve are those who are given the training to learn how to budget and use money wisely. United Way is one of the few organizations out there that tries to offer people assistance with a required training to know how to use money effectively. The average poor person will simply continue to manage money badly no matter how much you give him or her.
Just my two cents while I have a minute. Enjoy the week gang. I’m back at work with the kiddies so I have zip, zero time for my blog hobby!! :-)
By RF
August 9, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Amen to the 4:52 Net!! You have kept the tiara once again!!LOL
I know what you mean about scrubbing toilets. I did that a few summers and cut grass for my parents’ elderly neighbors while my parents watched the boys to make enough money to pay daycare during the school year. You definitely learn humility when you work yourself to the edge of exhaustion just to pay the bills. I cleaned some totally nasty bathrooms and kitchens, and did it proudly to take care of my munchkins. All the while, some overpaid big-wig was jetting off to the islands or touring the Caribbean in his yacht. And our society just lets it happen without a blink while paying out the butt for gas and groceries and working 70 hours a week to make the mortgage. Much like the Victorian era, isn’t it??
By NetBanker
August 9, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this
I was trying to say that executives already on top of the pyramid will not allow such advancement. This is one reason that I left the traditional banking world. Once you reach the mid-management level someone needs to die or retire in order to move up. The other thing I’ve observed is that within any particular industry many of the senior execs tend to know each other and move from company to company. It’s kind of like an exclusive club that is hard to get into, but great once you’re there.
By Archie
August 10, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
Netbanker, thank you for your 4:52 pm post. I did most of my janitorial work during college and briefly after I got my degree. Journalism was my first major and Cynthia Tucker herself could you about classmates that did not ever get to work in the field and thanks Net for acknowledging the superiority complex that so many Americans do have. Also I understand exactly the relationship between business analysts and programmers and you are so right that we,programmers, need good specs.
RF is also correct that people at all income levels need money management training. Oprah had a show about the debt diet and I was amazed at how educated people spent money recklessly.
In a right to work state, our lone representative: the guvment. Yep,Lozen.
By Gale
August 10, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this
I guess I must still be in the low paid peon class. I cannot imagine being rude to the janitor or housekeeper. For all I know, it is just a job until they finish school to be a doctor who might be treating me in a few years. (not to mention the bad karma it would cause.)
By Renee
August 10, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
RF - HEYYYYY! Miss ya much!!!! I did see the UPS exec’s “dreamhouse”. All, I can say is, it must be nice. I never think all that is necessary in a home, but since I don’t have the money, of course I would say that lol.
By morgan-lynn
August 10, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Lozen,men were the first secretaries and their work was valued highlly.Then when women became the norm ,wages did not adjust properly.[I am a man.] So many good replies here!Archie ,Mara and Lozen ,for starters, make good points.Oh, thankfully Mckenny is out and Johnson is in.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
NetBanker… I absolutely agree with your assertion that many copmanies are morally reprehensible and that humans are inherently greedy and that we need some level of regulation however…
Wouldn’t you agree that the government has itself eveolved into a company with the same inherently greedy people running it at all levels??? If so, what is to prevent the government from the same morally reprehensible acts as the corporations which they are supposd to be regulatng???
By Kyle
August 10, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
“Yeah, maybe. An executive can run a company into the ground, causing layoffs numbering in the thousands, but then the company has to pay him/her millions to leave. Yeah, I’m OK with the government saying that you can’t do that.”
-Billy…personally, i am very skeptical about the idea of the gov’t controling its citizens’ freedom to contract. in the HP case that we were talking about there are several options that could protect the company or its employees from financial loss. if the board can prove the CEO was negligent in her duties or that the bargaining process was not fair in some way, her contract could be voided and she wouldn’t get such a high severance. if the board can prove that she entered into the contract and performed in bad faith, her contract could be voided and she could even be sued. But if the board can’t prove any of this, which apparently they couldn’t because she was basically fired without cause, then the harm done to the company is a result of a bad business decision (hiring her in the first place) by the board. in an equal bargaining setting she negotiated a very lucrative contract in her favor. is it her fault the board messed up? no. why shouldn’t she benefit from her negotiating skills?
now, as for the employees, they to have avenues to gain restitution if they were wronged. they can sue the board if they can prove the board entered into a contract with the former CEO negligently. if the employees can gain enough shareholder support, they can even cause the company itself to sue the former CEO on grounds of neligence or bad faith. but if they can’t prove any of this then the employees really aren’t entitled to anything. if these people lost their job or money due to bad business decisons by higher ups, and not as a result of any negligence or bad faith, then i see this as an unfortuante possibility and reality of the business world - nothing more.
i guess my point is that there are checks and balances already in place. yes, i know, there are loopholes and ways to cheat the system (i.e. enron). but that’s b/c these people are breaking rules already in place, and many of them get caught, must pay back funds, and go to jail. if the rules that are in place are enforced, i really don’t have a problem with people negotiating lucrative and beneficial contracts.
By lozen
August 10, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
2D you’re right unfortunately about the government. So I guess that means we, the common people, are just screwed no matter what!
By chuck
August 10, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
Billy, you stated:
How can anyone acquire property to begin with when he’s making $5 an hour? Poor people are far more likely to be the victims of crime against both property and person…
Let’s do discuss that. The first question we should ask is:
“Why is a particular individual making just $5.25 an hour?”
Is it a high school kid making spending money or saving for a car? Is it a college student? Is it someone who dropped out of school and has no marketable skills? Is the work being done only WORTH $5.25 an hour?
In the first 2 cases, they are likely living at home and are working TOWARD a goal of eventually making more money through acquiring education and marketable skills. They are learning and earning something much more valuable than $5.25 an hour. They are learning the value of work. They are learning how to get along with other people in a business setting. They are learning that punctuality and hard work and perseverence and submitting to authority are characteristics that lead to success in life.
In the latter 2 cases, they are reaping the rewards of PAST decisions. There are VERY FEW people who could not under any circumstances do better for themselves than a minimum wage job. My parents could not afford buy me the things that I wanted as a junior high school student, so as a 12 year old I got a paper route and bought my own school clothes and supplies. By the time I was 15 I was throwing 3 routes and making more than my brother who had quit school and was working in construction. My parents couldn’t afford to send me to college. I worked in a grocery store making ground “chuck” in the meat department, as a church janitor, as a retail clerk and then as a manager in an athletic footwear store. I made a little better than minimum wage at each of those jobs until I used my talents and hard work and integrity to move into management where I made significantly more money.
Nobody ever gave me anything. There was no such thing as a HOPE Scholarship. I did get a small Pell grant for a couple of years. It didn’t even cover the cost of books. NOW, all you have to do is study, make B’s, and register and everybody in the state can go to college. Those who are in their 20’s and 30’s and even 40’s or 50’s don’t HAVE TO ACCEPT their station in life. THIS IS AMERICA. Anybody can be successful if they want to be badly enough. If you don’t believe me look at our last 3 Presidents.
Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be temporary. Those that choose to stay in them have made their choice. Those that can do no better because of mental disabilities should have some sort of safety net. Forcing a business to pay them more than they are worth is not the answer.
BTW, I noticed that those who want a higher minimum wage forced on businesses are the same ones who want to coddle ILLEGAL ALIENS, which contribute to the lower wages for menial jobs because they will do them for less. Take the 11,000,000 illegals out of the market and there will be greater competition for the marginally skilled AMERICANS who need those jobs and wages will go up NATURALLY.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Lozen… I wouldn’t say we are screwed. I would rather look at it as we common people need to take action outside the bounds of government. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I truly believe that is the most effective form of change. IMO government follows the citizens, it rarely ever leads it.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Wouldn’t you agree that the government has itself eveolved into a company with the same inherently greedy people running it at all levels??? If so, what is to prevent the government from the same morally reprehensible acts as the corporations which they are supposd to be regulatng???
To a certain extent, yes. The differences are: (a) The pay discrepancy is not nearly as great. Most government jobs pay decent wages, and even the President only makes around $400K a year, last I heard. Corporate executives often pull in 8 figures a year while the peons who do the actual labor are lucky to get cost-of-living wage increases that keep up with inflation. (b) The government ideally polices itself a little with the whole “Checks and Balances” bit. This part could definitely be better. I think having all three branches controlled by the same people hurts this. (c) If the people are unhappy with the politicians, they have regular opportunities to vote them out of office. How often are the average employees of a company given the opportunity to vote the CEO out of office?
By lozen
August 10, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
Chuck, your “christian” love and compassion for your fellow human beings just shines out so brightly in everything you post on this blog!
By chuck
August 10, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
I have to disagree with your 4:52 NETB. You said:
our own history during the Industrial Revolution and the era of the robber barons should tell us that by nature humans are greedy. Study after study shows that we’ll screw other people in some small way to guarantee more for ourselves. If one looks at the rise in compensation and wealth among what ends up being a very small percentage of the population it looks like we are returning to that same era. That accumulation of wealth has more to do with the other golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules) than the fact that those people have worked harder and earned it. Those at the top have the power to decide how much gets paid in dividends and bonuses and pay raises.
I agree that we need some regulation to keep CEO’s from KILLING companies and walking away with golden parachutes. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad idea. You know, probably better than anyone on this blog, that we do have a number of laws on the books that would enable the SEC to stop a lot of these practices, but many times the companies themselves hide these violations because of their sensitive nature. Contrary to your post, I think GREED is a good thing. GREED got America where it is today. Greed created the wealth and standard of living that we enjoy today. The POOREST American is better off than most of the people throughout the rest of the world. Additionally, that greed got us to the point that we could afford to be altruistic. Look at all of the good that we do throughout the world. None of this would be possible without that innate desire to acquire.
It is when greed crosses the line into abuse that we have problems. When CEO’s raid pension funds or put their workers at risk through dangerous production practices that violate OSHA regulations we should act and make sure that those CEO’s get what they deserve. Otherwise, the government should just stay out of it and let the market work.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Billy… Points well taken (although I believe the one about the pay structure is meaningless to my point b/c that doesn’t make the govenrment inherently more trustworthy), but that still doesn’t make me believe that the government is any more trustworthy than corporations.
The fact is, most corporations have separate legal and compliance offices to monitor the activities of the company. Also, as an owner of stock. I am sent literature to vote on various things such as board memebers and acquisition deals.
By Renee
August 10, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Ummm…I am far from a chuck “fan” but I agree with a lot of what he said…scary, scary
By 2D
August 10, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Lozen… Don’t let Chuck, I mean Gordon Gecko, I mean Ivan Bosky, get too far undr your skin.
By Archie
August 10, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
BTW, I noticed that those who want a higher minimum wage forced on businesses are the same ones who want to coddle ILLEGAL ALIENS
I don’t agree with that because it appears Repubs want illegal aliens but they don’t want a higher minimum wage. Heck minimum wage has been raised over the years and yet in America you still have unemployment averaging between 4 and 8 percent.
In defense of today’s students, I paid 350 to 450 for tuition out of my pocket years ago but now at some of the cheaper schools you pay 3500 to 4500 for tuition so if they get Hope,Help, or whatever scholarship take it and rejoice with it.
By chuck
August 10, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
These are the incomes of various entertainers from (I think) 2005. Anybody want to defend the pay THEY GOT? Think Tom Cruise was WORTH 67 million dollars last year?
Steven Spielberg ($332 mil)
Howard Stern ($302m)
George Lucas ($235m)
Oprah Winfrey ($225m)
Jerry Seinfeld 100m
Rolling Stones 90m
Tiger Woods 90m
Dan Brown 88m
Jerry Bruckheimer 84m
J.K. Rowling 75m
The Eagles 70m
Dick Wolf 70m
Tom Cruise 67m
Michael Schumacher 58m
Andrew Lloyd Webber 56m
Bruce Springsteen 55m
Muhammad Ali 55m
Cast of The Sopranos 52m
Phil Mickelson 47m
Dr. Phil McGraw 45m
Donald Trump 44m
Simon Cowell 43m
50 Cent 41m
Paul McCartney 40m
By chuck
August 10, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
2D, when you evolve to afully 3 dimensional entity, talk to me.
By lozen
August 10, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, yet Mr. Religious himself praises greed. Typical religious hypocrisy, take what you want and beat people over the head with it and ignore anything that might cramp your style.
By Renee
August 10, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
The Eagles last year made 70M? Jerry Seinfield 100m? That can’t be up to date.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Chuck — Regarding your rags-to-riches tale — No one gives a damn. You say no one gave you anything. Maybe not. But you also didn’t start out that disadvantaged. You had both parents. Your parents could presumably read. There are many circumstances I can think of that would put someone in an extremely disadvantaged situation through no fault of his own, and it’s possible that that person could be as smart as you and have as much work ethic as you and still not have the chips fall in his favor.
Regarding immigration, I said a couple of days ago that we need to address that issue. I guess my idea is that instead of just saying, “Build a wall so they can’t drive down wages,” we can dictage wages to an extent. Make them fair and Americans will work those jobs.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Renee… I actually read about Seinfeld. He did make that last year from syndication royalties and his live performances.
By JohnF
August 10, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Chuck,
I think you are confusing greed with the concepts of ambition and the desire to succeed and innovate…
Greed didn’t drive the success of the US, the other concepts did…now we still have greed but are falling behind in our ability to innovate…
The US has become ambivalant to downright hostile to science and technology and our brightest scientists are leaving the US for more encouraging locations…Singapore and Hong Kong and even France.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
The POOREST American is better off than most of the people throughout the rest of the world.
Not the industrialized world…
Additionally, that greed got us to the point that we could afford to be altruistic. Look at all of the good that we do throughout the world.
We are not altruistic. We help others because it either benefits us in some way or assuages any guilt we feel over the way we care only about ourselves. “Sure I laid off 100 workers so I could buy another boat, but I gave some old clothes to Goodwill!” “Sure we tortured a bunch of detainees, but we also handed the Iraqis some ham sandwiches!”
Also, as an owner of stock. I am sent literature to vote on various things such as board memebers and acquisition deals.
Yeah, I’ve received thsoe, too. But are the votes of the board members who own thousands and thousands of shares not given greater weight than those of the employees who may manage to buy one or two dozen shares a year throught the employee stock purchase plan?
Chuck — Entertainers are grossly overpaid, so there’s nothing wrong with executives walking oll over the little people? Nice.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Billy… While I don’t care about Chuck’s rags to riches story, it is important to note that he was able to find success wihtout starting off in the upper crust of society. Too often we hear arguments that only wealthy people becme successful and that is most definitely not the case.
Also… Not having two parents or having illiterate parents is not necessarily a barrier to success. Immigrants who canit speak a lick of English become successful. Many people from single parent homes become successful. Many people from families in the lower economic levels become successful. Is it more difficult??? Yes. But still proven to be possible.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
2D — I realize all that. My point in response to Chuck’s “I never got anything” spiel is that he could have been a lot worse off to start out. And the fact that some people are able to become financially independent from a given situation in no way means that all people in that situation would be able to do the same if only they’d try.
By Marie
August 10, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Big stores like WalMart will get out of town when people stop buying there. People like me buy there for one reason: it’s cheap. And I don’t even buy Cheetos. When you live on a tight budget, 20 cents off a loaf of bread ends up being 10% off your grocery bill, which means I can buy shoes for my growing son, who would otherwise have to wait until the holes are breeding holes. My family is self-employed and very hard working and we don’t have insurance because we can’t afford it. That is a part of capitalism. It is not the government’s job to make sure that I have insurance or that my children have shoes. It’s my and my husband’s job. If government will stay out of things, it all settles where it should. The government pays for daycare, food stamps, and all manner of things to people who have no motivation to change because it’s provided for them already. Who is providing that? Us. We pay our taxes and we also contribute to charities, when we can, on the side. Meanwhile, they have insurance and we don’t. I wonder if we weren’t taxed to pieces if we might not be able to afford luxuries like insurance.
By Marie
August 10, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Big stores like WalMart will get out of town when people stop buying there. People like me buy there for one reason: it’s cheap. And I don’t even buy Cheetos. When you live on a tight budget, 20 cents off a loaf of bread ends up being 10% off your grocery bill, which means I can buy shoes for my growing son, who would otherwise have to wait until the holes are breeding holes. My family is self-employed and very hard working and we don’t have insurance because we can’t afford it. That is a part of capitalism. It is not the government’s job to make sure that I have insurance or that my children have shoes. It’s my and my husband’s job. If government will stay out of things, it all settles where it should. The government pays for daycare, food stamps, and all manner of things to people who have no motivation to change because it’s provided for them already. Who is providing that? Us. We pay our taxes and we also contribute to charities, when we can, on the side. Meanwhile, they have insurance and we don’t. I wonder if we weren’t taxed to pieces if we might not be able to afford luxuries like insurance.
By Renee
August 10, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
2D, I definitely agree with your 11:38.
Let me say first, also, that I am not defending “Chuck” but my own personal views.
I definitely don’t think government intervention on a business to make them pay an employee more than they feel they are worth is not the answer. It’s like if a person isn’t doing well, it’s always some outstide force, keeping them from doing well, and there is always a form of government cushion to fall on. That is not always the case. I think in one form or another we are all dealt what we perceive to be an unfair hand. Unfortunately, some people will not get off their a** and do anything until they are made to accept responsibility. And as mentioned before, in the cases of mental or physical disabilities, there should be an additional cushion for them, but not necessarily one that the company is forced to provide.
I do believe if one has the drive and the initiative, there is not too much that one cannot accomplish. If you have a talent, you can get discovered and make unlimited amounts of money maximizing on that talent. Hell, without a talent, if you know the right person, the same can happen. (How many “singers” do we know that really can’t sing). There are multiple ways one can achieve an education, when one is not wealthy, it is even argueably easier to achieve an eduacation without wealth.
I think bringing the government in and having them raise the minimum wage to bring fairness across the board, is nice ideally, but not realistically. When does it end. We raise it, and raise it and raise it, and then what.
By chuck
August 10, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
I’m not rich by any stretch of the imagination Billy. The truth is that neither of my parents graduated from high school. They worked hard…my Dad was a firefighter my Mom babysat6-8 infants/toddlers. We had tons of medical bills and very little else. We ate meat, 1-2 times a week…usually on Sunday. I don’t care if you care or not to be honest with you. What matters is that I MADE things happen to improve my life and that of my family. I gave up a much more lucrative career in business to teach. I MADE that choice and don’t regret it. I don’t demand that anyone give me a raise. I knew what I would make when I took the job. I’m glad we have gotten raises but would be doing this even if we hadn’t. There are other ways to make more money…a second job, a home business, ebay, etc.
If you can’t make money in America, you’re an idiot or LAZY. Get over it.
JF, America is not resistant to technology. The reason that technology is being PRODUCED in other places is because between the unions, and “regulations”, and taxes, we are making it harder and harder for businesses to make a profit in production. The technology is still being developed here, we’re just sending the production jobs overseas.
You are perhaps correct about the term “greed”, Lozen. I think perhaps the concept of competition is more appropriate. The idea of being your own boss, the protestant work ethic, the idea of working to be the best. Pride in one’s work. All of these contributed to our growth and wealth. The bottom line is that we WANTED to be successful. While we are not hostile to science and technology, my fear is that WE ARE becoming hostile to success. Many of those on the left are the “have nots” of our society. They all want their piece of the pie, but most of them want it given to them after it has been taken from those who are successful…those who through their own hard work and talent have accumulated wealth for themselves and their children. They can’t stand it when anyone else makes it because they aren’t willing to do what it takes to make it for themselves. In other words, they are JEALOUS. This jealousy has led us to STIFLE innovation sometimes because we OVERTAX the wealthy. The top 20% of the population in terms of income, pay about 90% of all taxes. How fair is that? They should not be paying MY tax burden or YOURS. We should all be paying the same rate in taxes. If we could stop the runaway spending, we could do that.
If you want to talk about greed Lozen, how about the concept of sitting back and watching OTHER PEOPLE work and earn and then express the desire to take their earnings from them to benefit yourself. Sounds pretty greedy to me.
By Chilao
August 10, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
If you don’t believe me look at our last 3 Presidents.
should we assume he means pre-GW? and earlier?(excluding GW’s Dad of course, as well)
By chuck
August 10, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
I’m not rich by any stretch of the imagination Billy. The truth is that neither of my parents graduated from high school. They worked hard…my Dad was a firefighter my Mom babysat6-8 infants/toddlers. We had tons of medical bills and very little else. We ate meat, 1-2 times a week…usually on Sunday. I don’t care if you care or not to be honest with you. What matters is that I MADE things happen to improve my life and that of my family. I gave up a much more lucrative career in business to teach. I MADE that choice and don’t regret it. I don’t demand that anyone give me a raise. I knew what I would make when I took the job. I’m glad we have gotten raises but would be doing this even if we hadn’t. There are other ways to make more money…a second job, a home business, ebay, etc.
If you can’t make money in America, you’re an idiot or LAZY. Get over it.
JF, America is not resistant to technology. The reason that technology is being PRODUCED in other places is because between the unions, and “regulations”, and taxes, we are making it harder and harder for businesses to make a profit in production. The technology is still being developed here, we’re just sending the production jobs overseas.
You are perhaps correct about the term “greed”, Lozen. I think perhaps the concept of competition is more appropriate. The idea of being your own boss, the protestant work ethic, the idea of working to be the best. Pride in one’s work. All of these contributed to our growth and wealth. The bottom line is that we WANTED to be successful. While we are not hostile to science and technology, my fear is that WE ARE becoming hostile to success. Many of those on the left are the “have nots” of our society. They all want their piece of the pie, but most of them want it given to them after it has been taken from those who are successful…those who through their own hard work and talent have accumulated wealth for themselves and their children. They can’t stand it when anyone else makes it because they aren’t willing to do what it takes to make it for themselves. In other words, they are JEALOUS. This jealousy has led us to STIFLE innovation sometimes because we OVERTAX the wealthy. The top 20% of the population in terms of income, pay about 90% of all taxes. How fair is that? They should not be paying MY tax burden or YOURS. We should all be paying the same rate in taxes. If we could stop the runaway spending, we could do that.
If you want to talk about greed Lozen, how about the concept of sitting back and watching OTHER PEOPLE work and earn and then express the desire to take their earnings from them to benefit yourself. Sounds pretty greedy to me.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Well, marie, if we had a national healthcare plan you might also have insurance…
By chuck
August 10, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
No Chilao, I include the current President and Clinton AND George the 1st.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
If you can’t make money in America, you’re an idiot or LAZY. Get over it.
Well, gee whiz, I think you just solved it all…
If you want to talk about greed Lozen, how about the concept of sitting back and watching OTHER PEOPLE work and earn and then express the desire to take their earnings from them to benefit yourself. Sounds pretty greedy to me.
And you think executives don’t do this??? Are you kidding me?
By chuck
August 10, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
We haven’t had a REAL president since Reagan.
By Chilao
August 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
No Chilao, I include the current President and Clinton AND George the 1st.
LMAO - since ‘pulling one up by their bootstraps’ USUALLY is not applied to people coming from inherited wealth. (which are both Bush Presidents)
but we can agree on Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Reagan.
By chuck
August 10, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
No Billy, Executives don’t do that. Just because a contractor isn’t swinging a hammer doesn’t mean that he isn’t working. If you don’t understand that concept you have no business being in this discussion.
By morgan-lynn
August 10, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Other wages ,for whatever reason, go up when the minimum wage goes up and there are hardly any layoffs.This is no burdensome requirement that distorts the market.It makes the market fair - as in Americanism.So what is socialism? Something one disagrees with , but cannot argue against; so ,one tries to use a scare tactic!
By Renee
August 10, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
We haven’t had a REAL president since Reagan.
I have to disagree there. Also, the Bushes are wealthy.
By chuck
August 10, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
The point you missed Chilao was that even people who have no inherent talent can make it to the top in America. Money gave the Bushes a start, but they WORKED to parlay that into political success. Clinton used sleaze and the Bushes used connections but they used the resources available to them to get to where they are…much higher than they probably should have gotten.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I’m not talking about the contractors. I’m talking about executives who sit in their corner offices at the top of tall buildings, smoking cigars and deciding to lay off workers and raise prices at the same time. I’m tlaking about fat cats who fly in company jets to Tahiti or somewhere to meet “clients” and charge the expense to the company while their typical worker might not be able to afford braces for his kid.
And let’s talk about that inherited wealth. If everyone has equal opportunity to become a seccess in business, then we should most definitely have a high estate tax. There’s no need for ther kids to inherit millions of dollars; if they work hard they can be successful all the same.
By NetBanker
August 10, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Hey kids…busy day so in/out quickly.
2D…I don’t trust our government in the least. The interesting thing is that we pay tons of attention to Congress, but they really aren’t ‘the government’ and have less influence on its operations than most of citizens realize. Realistically ‘the government’ is run by career civil servants who work in all various agencies and departments. There is an ability to take advantage of their positions although I think there is also a greater accountability than on private companies. I also think that there is a lesser ability to cook the books or raid the coffers. I do agree with Billy that the pay disparity between top and bottom is nowhere near what it is in the private sector.
Chuck…I don’t know that I clarified my point on greed enough for you to recognize that it is unbridled greed that is the issue. We did experience that unbridled level of greed in the ruling classes during the periods that I mentioned and it does feel like a return to that era given the growing disparity between executive-level pay and non-executives in the same company. You just can’t convince me that CEO’s add 40 times more value to their companies today than they did 20-30 years ago yet their compensation has increase at least that much on average. Worker’s wages have not risen near that amount yet all the increased productivity has been wrung from this group. And who decides those compensation packages? Those at the top of the food chain! I’ve seen it happen everywhere. When I worked for BofA I offered the same suggestion every year on the annual employee survey to the question “What would you change if you were the CEO for a day?” My response was always that I’d flip the bonus structure so that the highest percentages were paid to the low level employees and the lower percentages were granted to the highly paid employees when goals are met. It always burned me up that the goals were met based on the numbers of low level employees earning an average of $30k a year. The bonus percent for these people was 3-5% of salary while the Sr. Execs (who headed those divisions and didn’t actually DO a single bit of the work that was being measured to determine if goals were met for the division) would get 10-12% of their salary. Numerically 5% of 200K is still more than 12% of 30K and still a nice sum for not doing anything but tracking numbers and yelling at people to work harder to make those numbers.
The reason that technology is being PRODUCED in other places is because between the unions, and “regulations”, and taxes, we are making it harder and harder for businesses to make a profit in production. The technology is still being developed here, we’re just sending the production jobs overseas.* I agree that we’ve lost the production of the technology, but at the same time more technology IS being developed in other countries. The numbers of scientists and engineers being trained in the U.S. is dropping while it is rising in India and China. More foreign U.S. trained scientists/engineers are returning to their home countries. I think we do need to be concerned about a brain drain here at home. And we should not underestimate the amount of government paid research that eventually makes it to the private market and that wouldn’t have been developed in the private market due to the tremendous initial costs to achieve commercial production viability. My father cites his former work on fire suppression systems used on military installations and in certain military vehicles. His lab developed the technology, but didn’t have the commercial production ability so they sold the rights to a private company in conjunction with a very favorably priced contract to purchase the produced systems. That company also has the right to sell to other companies such as commercial producers of volatile substances (i.e. chemical companies) and they do. That technology would likely never have been commercially produced had the government not paid for the initial research for military use.
We are pretty much of like mind on taxation of the wealthy and the entitlement mindset of too many of the ‘have-nots’ in our society. I’ve met too many people through volunteer activities about whom I’ve thought “if you worked at a real job as hard as you work trying to scam people and the system you’d be doing VERY well in life.” I do think the wealthy are heavily taxed. I’m not sure that I see them using their wealth for the greater good of humanity though. My impression is that Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Warren Buffet are the only major philanthropists of our time in an era of increasing numbers of wealthy people. Let’s take the UPS guy mentioned by RF as an example who has his own chapel at his house. Did he really NEED that and wouldn’t the money have been better spent rebuilding several bombed out churches or one single new church for use by an entire congregation? He could have affected hundreds of lives for good, yet chose to have his own private chapel instead in a house that is massive and only occupied by 2 people.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
GWBush is the epitome of the truth of the “American Dream” — While you can start out with nothing but your intelligence, work ethic, and perseverance and become successful, you can also start out with none of the above, but also have a rich and influential family, and still be thought a success. And the latter is every bit as likely to occur.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Money gave the Bushes a start, but they WORKED to parlay that into political success.
Chuck, money buys political success. That’s what’s wrong with our political system right now.
By blablabla
August 10, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
You’re only greedy if you want to keep money that you earned or were paid. Doesn’t everybody know that?
By Renee
August 10, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Clinton used sleaze and the Bushes used connections but they used the resources available to them to get to where they are…much higher than they probably should have gotten
Nope, neither Bush used sleaze at all. Fine, upstanding individuals, those Bushes are!!
By Scalia
August 10, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Come on, Gw Bush was successful because of his last name and who his family is. He is a terrible example of hard work and making it on your own merit.
And speaking of Presidents, it would be nice if a president wasn’t wealthy and actually came from poverty so that he/she could relate to the common man and be a true story of working from the ground up and making it to the very top.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
And speaking of Presidents, it would be nice if a president wasn’t wealthy and actually came from poverty so that he/she could relate to the common man and be a true story of working from the ground up and making it to the very top.
Clinton kind of did that…
By chuck
August 10, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Billy, I agree with you about money and politics to a degree, but as important as being rich, is having those CONTACTS with the rich. The big problem with money in politics is that it is nearly impossible to prove a quid pro quo…money for votes relationship. I think donations to political campaigns should be unlimited so that free speech is protected. I think that if you combine that with FULL DISCLOSURE of all gifts, people could make up their minds about whether or not to vote for someone who got millions from trial lawyers or from oil executives.
Being rich is not a guarantee for getting elected. There have been a bunch of examples to the contrary, but it does help you get into the club. Some of the wealthiest politicians are democrats. Go figure.
NETB, wouldn’t you agree that we have enough regulations in place to keep the abuses you mentioned from ocurring IF we enforced them?
Billy, the analogy I used of the contractor was just an obvious one. Executives do work that has nothing much to do with the actual labor involved in producing a profit. Some of them manage assets, some organize or set policy. Do you really think that companies would be successful if no one was in charge? Executives help to keep the eye on the ball. They make sure that company goals are being met. That may not be YOUR idea of work, but it does qualify in the real world. I’m wondering Billy…what exactly do you do for a living?
By NetBanker
August 10, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
By chuck
August 10, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Quit with Presidents already!!! The point was not that those 3 were overly talented or deserving. The point was that if those 3 could become President ANYBODY in America could be successful.
By blablabla
August 10, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
He was NOT a good or successful businessman
yet we were dumb enough to vote for him. not once, but twice. what does that say about us?
By NetBanker
August 10, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Chuck…to what regulations are you referring? There are none specifically on compensation package size. There are no rules that says a company has to pay a dividend from a profit nor are there rules limiting how much of a bonus one can be paid. The regulations that haven’t been enforced generally revolve around stock, insider trading, etc. An interesting little factoid is that back dating of stock options was used frequently to guarantee excellent returns for executives. This was NOT illegal which is why is was done so regularly.
CEOs and Sr. Executives tend to sit on each other’s board of directors so it’s become a chummy club of compensation back scratching. It is only more recently that stockholders are starting to demand full disclosure and insight into how the packages are structured. There are, to my knowledge, no regulations or accounting rules that require this disclosure to stock holders.
I don’t disagree that executives perform work and of the type you suggest, Chuck. What I do question is the level of compensation they seem to receive for that work in comparison to non-executives. It is a rare manager whose method to “make sure that company goals are being met” isn’t primarily “here are your goals as I’ve defined them. you need to make them. if you don’t, we’ll find someone who will.” My experience is that the goals and/or timeframes are rarely set by people who have actually done the work and therefore they are unrealistic. I am fortunate to command a great deal of respect from my employees because I did do their job for 4+ years and they recognize that I DO understand their challenges and frustrations as well as how I try to introduce changes that will aleviate them.
By Renee
August 10, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Did he really NEED that and wouldn’t the money have been better spent rebuilding several bombed out churches or one single new church for use by an entire congregation? He could have affected hundreds of lives for good, yet chose to have his own private chapel instead in a house that is massive and only occupied by 2 people.
I agree with this Net 110%, but I also think people have the right to spend their money/or not spend their money as they deem necessary. I used to get really mad about a lot of celebrities not using their money in the community to help build it up, but then who says they have to.
By NetBanker
August 10, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
yet we were dumb enough to vote for him. not once, but twice. what does that say about us? Don’t drag me into this Bla! I didn’t vote for him, but I don’t think it says anything more than that people tend to vote for the candidate they LIKE or dislike the least on personally without any regard to their acutal accomplishments. I recall some interviews with Bush supporters who pretty much said that they met him at a BBQ rally and he seemed like a real nice man and someone they could be friends with. When asked what they knew about his background most couldn’t tell you a blessed thing other than that 41 was his Dad.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Chuck, NetB just encapsulated everything I was trying to say in his 2:24 post.
I’m not arguing that executives don’t do anything to help the company. I’m arguing that the manner in which they help consists largely of hobnobbing with other executives and motivating the underlings with rousing choruses of “Do it or you’re fired.”
As for my job, I’m not going to go into too much detail because it wouldn’t be that hard for someone to track me down. Suffice it to say that I spend most of my day at the computer doing clerical/bookkeeping/sales work — paperwork, answering the phone, taking orders, managing the web page — and part of the day doing actual labor — lugging things around, shipping, receiving. I can spend half the day or half an hour working outside with the phone on my hip; it just depends on what needs to be done.
I’m happy with my pay, though I’d be happier with more, of course. I’d be especially happy if it provided something toward healthcare, but as one of four employees I know that’s not going to happen unless we affiliate ourselves with another, larger company. I like my job for the freedom to do things like get on the board. I like that I’m responsible for certain duties and do not require anyone looking over my shoulder. I like the fact that some days, whenn no one else is here, I have the responsibility to run the office on my own.
I have my reasons for liking my job. Were my boss paying himself $25K a month while I didn’t get aything toward healthcare, however, I’d probably quit. I’m confident in my ability to get another job.
By lozen
August 10, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
What’s the “we” stuff? I didn’t vote for him ever. At least half of “us” did not vote for him, probably more than that. So a better q. would be “what does that make the 50% (or less) of us that voted for him.”
By blablabla
August 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
net, lozen - it’s the collective “WE”. i didn’t vote for him either, in 00 or 04.
but unfortunately it’s somewhat an indictment of everybody, like it or not, because both times he was viewed as better than the alternative, by the collective.
and you’re right, net, people probably couldn’t tell you much about W, the person, before he was elected, or tell you much about his policies. i would bet the same is true for kerry as well. unfortunately i think we suffer from a somewhat dispassionate and under-informed electorate, and our choices in our leaders seem to stink.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Billy… I think you have seen too many commercials. Folks who have the “corner office” are not up hatching pans to downsize their company or simply loafing around.
Sure, they may not have their heads down grinding out work for 9/10 hours per day, but the couple of things they do may impact the bottom line of the company more than 100 people working in the trenches. The bottom line is, those folks are being paid for knowledge and expertise and the responsibility they incur to the company.
Case in point… I have a friend who’s sole job it was to travel to potential clients, work with the potential client’s IT staff and close a deal. In between he lounged at home. He may only go on one call a month. He may go on a bunch of calls in a two week period and nothing for the next several weeks. However, his knowledge and expertise closed million dollar deals that kept the company in the black and kept lots of other people working. He earned every penny een though he wasn’t grinding out 60 hour work weeks.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
2D — I know; I was using hyperbole. I’m just trying to get across to Chuck that not everyone who is poor or on minimum wage is so because they are stupid or lazy and not everyone who is banking six or more figures actually earns that much by doing work that is actually worth that much. I’m not saying that everyone who’s poor/working for minimum wage is not stupid or lazy, or that everyone who’s making a ton of money doesn’t deserve it. I’m just saying that this blanket attitude of “poor people should change; executives earn every penny” is wrong.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Billy… Perhaps I’m apathetic. Perhaps I’m something else, but I just don’t believe that your hyperbolic examples are the norm. I beleive they are the exception.
That said, I don’t think the government should be basing policy on the extreme scenarios. I also don’t believe that the government should treate different parts of society differently. IMO the government is supposed to be impartial. When it isn’t, all that does is introduce more and more layers of confusion and convolution.
Case in point… the tax code. The current code allows for various loopholes the size of a Mack truck (does Mack still make trucks??? I only ever seem to see Volvos). A flat tax would simplify everything and, quite possibly (or probably), close many of those loopholes. It works for Social Security and Medicare, why not for a basic income tax?
By Renee
August 10, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Fair tax, fair tax, fair tax!!!!!
By NetBanker
August 10, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Renee…I’m not mad about the spending nor do I think we should require them to spend in any way. I do think that people should be able to spend their own money as they see fit. It just seems to me that there used to be a greater sense of responsibility among the wealthy to use their wealth for the benefit of others more than for person gain. What’s happened to our ability as a society or individuals to determine what is reasonably enough?
By Chilao
August 10, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Speaking of Macks, I was driving in PA on the interstate, and saw a full restored(red) 1955 Mack flatbed truck hauling a fully-restored(copper) 1952 Buick. Can we say Neat? LOL
http://www.macktrucks.com/
In fact I even have a Mack Trucks cap. aerated even. (I also have a Metallica cap)
By Renee
August 10, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
I agree completely Net!
By Chilao
August 10, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
and Chuck and I are going to have to look at points abit differently, as I see a big difference between opportunites related to inherited-money/Philips Academy education and well, the rest of us common folk.
By Billy
August 10, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
2D — My hyperbolic example was opposing Chuck’s. I at least admit that it was hyperbole.
I don’t think extremes should be used as the basis for government policy. On of those extremes is that poor people are that way because they are dumb and/or lazy. If we are going to base policy on that, then we should also base it on the idea that executives will hang their employees out to dry if it means a tenth of a point increase in the price of the company stock. Again, I don’t think that’s actually the best way to handle this issue. How is Social Security a flat tax? I was under the impression that it is capped at around $90K per year.
By NetBanker
August 10, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Go RENEE!! FAIR TAX!!!
I’d rather be taxed on my consumption than on what I earn. I’ve fallen into that category of getting a raise that bumped me into a new tax bracket and resulted in net pay being barely more than before the raise. Hello? Payroll?…yeah, I just got a $7,000 raise, but my bi-weekly paycheck only went up by $70. Somehow that just doesn’t seem quite right. Oh? New Tax Bracket with a higher rate? Oh right. No, I didn’t check my withholdings. Yes, I do see where my tax withholding has gone up by $199 per pay.
By 2D
August 10, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Billy… Social Security is a flat tax in that it is not a progressive taxing structure. Same rate up to the cap and noone can get out of paying, except of course for government employees.
NetBanker… You are correct that society, particularly the wealthy, have become less philanthropic. Of course that is a broad generalization. However, I would still rather see the current system than to see the government attempt to step in force that philanthropic attitude on society.
When the government steps in, the program seems to become part of the entitlement mentality than the safety net mentality. It also creates a whole new set of the civil servants you previously mention, who become so entrenched in their positions that it becomes easier to extract wood ticks from my dog than get rid of the civil servants. For an example of this, see yet again, Social Security.
By blablabla
August 10, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
renee, if we had a “fair” tax, how would people gripe that somebody isn’t paying their “fair” share?
By Billy
August 10, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
2D — a flat tax up to a certain point amounts to a recessive tax.If I have to pay tax on all my earnings, but someone who makes $1 million only has to pay a taxon his income up to a $90 thousand-ish cap, then he is only having to pay that tax on ten percent of his earnings, whereas I’m seeing 100% of mine taxed. He might end up paying more on that tax than I do, but he is, in effect, being taxed at a lower rate.
By NetBanker
August 10, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this
I would still rather see the current system than to see the government attempt to step in force that philanthropic attitude on society 2D…I agree, but that won’t stop me from being disappointed in people’s attitudes about giving. It all starts small and at home. I recently had to shame my own partner into donating a sectional sofa we were replacing rather than put it out for the garbage men. He didn’t want to be bothered with having to make 2 trips in our Jeep to get both parts to the charity store that is a merely 1.5 miles from our house. All I had to do to make him change his tune was to compare him to one of his Sandy Springs clients who spends money for entertainment and throws out barely used clothing, lamps, toys, whatever she’s bored with. It makes me sad and angry how much she throws away rather than gives away. So my partner now pulls kids clothes out of their trash and makes sure it either goes to someone we know who could use it or drops it at another of his clients who volunteers with Catholic Charities.
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
TWO SISTERS
Two sisters, one blonde and one brunette, inherit the family ranch. Unfortunately, after just a few years, they are in financial trouble. In order to keep the bank from repossessing the ranch, they need to purchase a bull from the stockyard in a far town so that they can breed their own stock. They only have $600 left.
Upon leaving, the brunette tells her sister, “When I get there, if I decide to buy the bull, I’ll contact you to drive out after me and haul it home.”
The brunette arrives at the stockyard, inspects the bull, and decides she wants to buy it. The man tells her that he will sell it for $599 - no less. After paying him, she drives to the nearest town to send her sister a telegram to tell her the news.
She walks into the telegraph office, and says, “I want to send a telegram to my sister telling her that I’ve bought a bull for our ranch. I need her to hitch the trailer to our pickup truck and drive it here so we can haul it home.”
The telegraph operator explains that he’ll be glad to help her, then adds, “It’s just 99 cents a word.”
Well, after paying for the bull, the brunette only has $1 left. She realizes that she’ll only be able to send her sister one word.
After a few minutes of thinking, she nods and says, “I want you to send her the word ‘comfortable’.”
The operator shakes his head. “How is she ever going to know that you want her to hitch the trailer to your pickup truck and drive out here to haul that bull back to your ranch if you send her just the word ‘comfortable’?”
The brunette explains, “My sister’s a blonde. The word’s big. She’ll read it very slowly…….. com-for-da-bull”.
By NetBanker
August 11, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Hmmm…there are people in my office so I know the rapture didn’t happen. Did I miss the space ship picking up all those who figured it out so we can sit back and watch the religion fascists and greedy rich people completely destroy the planet?
Billy…Why should the guy who makes $1 million have to pay SS tax on 100% of his income when the benefit is capped? Those whose income is above the taxation cap are already paying enough to fund their own SS benefit plus that of others.
By lozen
August 11, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
cute Chileo.
Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world. Dave Barry
By Kyle
August 11, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
well, summer is coming to an end and my summer associate position is as well. this will be my last day at work before i head back for one more fun-filled year of class. hope i didn’t aggravate to many of you with my arguments - it was pretty interesting to hear all of your points of view
-bring on the jokes
By Billy
August 11, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Net — I’m not saying they should, I’m just saying that it’s not truly a flat tax.
Regarding taxes, I’d just like to restate my earlier point — If it’s so simple that hard work is all that’s required to be successful and get ahead in life, then there’s no reason not to have the estate tax. They don’t need all of that multi-million dollar inheritance; as long as they aren’t dumb or lazy, they’ll be able to be successful with only a couple million…
By 2D
August 11, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
NetBanker… Kudos to you for getting that sectional donated. For future reference, some charities will come and pick-up. I donated dining room stuff to Lutheran Ministries of Georgia, versus other charities, because they sent a nice crew to take the furniture away.
Billy… You are correct. Technically it is not a flat tax since there is a cap. But I think you get the point, especially after NetBanker eloquently (as usual) clarified the point.
On the fair tax… While it is a HUGE improvement over what we have now, I am more of a flat taxer myself. Calculate the “poverty” line and flat tax all income above that line. No brackets, deductibles or loopholes. Not sure what the percentage would be, but I think y’all get the idea. I am not an economist, but it seems there would be less fluctuation there than in the fair tax.
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Lozen - now that I have the time to inquire, is there a special meaning in “chilEo” vs my “chilAo” as you have spelled it that way MANY times, so many, I have to ask about any double entendre there?. Name itself is derived from a place, Chilao Flats,(large boulders made pursuit difficult) where the bandits harassing the Union Army hung out, when California had just become a state. In fact, Chilao is Anglizised Spanish for ‘chilio’(hot stuff, and in all modesty, I have been addressed that way before….LMAO..and not because the Feds hot on my tail).
Now that is not protesting the chilEo vs chilAo but I (today) had the time to ask. LOL
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
and Chilio(chillio?) was a specific lady-killer bandit.
By 2D
August 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Billy… If you own substantial wealth, shouldn’t you, through your will, be able to distribute that wealth to the people or organizations of your choice when you pass away???
Why should the government get any piece of it when you die when they have taxed you on that wealth for your entire life???
By The72John
August 11, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Hi all - work’s been hectic the last couple of days.
Why should the government get any piece of it when you die when they have taxed you on that wealth for your entire life???
When money changes hands, taxes are levied against it. Is it “right” or “wrong”? Those are subjective terms. Taxation is necessary to keep a society like ours running, no matter how much we may dislike that fact.
However, the furor over the estate tax is a typical example of rich conservatives using fear mongering and manufacturing righteous anger to advance their own causes. A fraction of estates are hit with the tax, and the only people who stand to benefit from its abolishment are the very wealthy. Oh, they get middle-class Americans all riled up about “right” and “wrong”, but never mention that the shortfall generated by taxing estates as they change hands will fall entirely on the middle class.
Billy… If you own substantial wealth, shouldn’t you, through your will, be able to distribute that wealth to the people or organizations of your choice when you pass away???
No one’s stopping you, and frankly if you have any financial savvy at all there are many vehicles with built-in tax shelters that allow generational wealth transfer with no taxing whatsoever. I should know, seeing as how my company sells them.
By lozen
August 11, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Sorry Chilao, I lived in the southwest where they have chile and chili but no chila! I think that’s why I keep misspelling it. Neat history behind “Chilao”. “Lozen” was an apache medicine woman, shaman and warrior who rode and fought with Geronimo and her brother Victorio, who was a less well-known but mighty, apache war leader. She surrendered with Geronimo (the last people to give up the fight to keep their country), was imprisoned in FL and then AL where she died of tuberculosis at 50. She was an awesome woman.
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
LOZEN - interesting on the Apache woman, I have the T-shirt, shows Geronimo and three other Apaches,standing, all with carbines, top of T-shirt says “Department of Homeland Security” and underneath says “Fighting Terrorism since 1492”. LOL
I have only driven through there once, from Tucson to the BioSphereII place and then on up to ShowLow. Rugged country.
By lozen
August 11, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Chilao, did you spend time at Biosphere?
By 2D
August 11, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
John… You are correct that a very small portion of the estates in this country will get taxed. Given that fact, it also pretty well assured that my children will not be taxed when leave this life. And yes, I agree that the folks who are taxed can undoubtedly afford to pay the tax.
My belief is that government should treat all people as equals. If the person with a $100K estate doesn’t pay estate taxes then the person with a $100M estate shouldn’t pay estate taxes either. When the government feels free to make those types of distinctions, it may also feel free to make others as well. I would rather not let those distinctions be made at all.
NetBanker’s example of his raise is a perfect example of how our government’s wonderful progressive taxing structure has basically reduced that raise to a paltry figure. Now, Net gets all of the work and responsibility associated with that extra $$$ and virtually none of the extra $$$. Thank you very much Uncle Sam!!!
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Lozen - I did the tour they offer, that is all. 1/2 a day I suppose I was there total. Neat place.
By Billy
August 11, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
2D — People still can pass on substantial wealth. I’m not opposed to an exemption on the estate tax up to a certain point. And I think the tax should be levied based on how much an heir/beneficiary receives instead of how much the deceased leaves. But if someone is leaving $100 million to an only child, by all means tax it. The child has done no more to earn the money than anyone else alive but will still have plenty left over after the tax to buy a small island in the Carribbean, build a large house on it, and make weekly jaunts in one of the yachts in his or her fleet.
Also — The government doesn’t really tax the wealth. They tax the income. To the best of my knowledge, you could have a few million dollars and as long as you weren’t investing it where it would earn anything, you wouldn’t have to worry about paying any taxes.
By 2D
August 11, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Billy… Forgive me if I paraphrase this incorrectly but I understand your basic assertion is that the only child inheriting $100M did nothing to earn the money and doesn’t need that much money so the government has the right to take a portion of it. Is that pretty much correct???
By blablabla
August 11, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
unfortunately the estate tax trips more estates than we like to think. it’s not just for the very wealthy, as more and more americans are or have become first generation millionaires. the government is also the entity that determines how estates are valued, and from personal experience i know that they rarely apply real world common sense in valuing an estate.
furthermore, the government is incented to react slowly to the changes in earnings and wealth because it reaps the benefit in the form of additional tax dollars.
just look at AMT - look at who it was originally expected to be captured in the tax, and look at how (as incomes have creeped up) more and more people who were never intended to be paying the tax are now subjected to it. this is primarily due to the fact that the government hasn’t made any adjustment in AMT limits for the last twenty (or more) years.
so i don’t think we should kid ourselves and expect the government to stay up with the times in adjusting the estate tax limits. it’s becoming more of an issue and will become more important in the future.
By Billy
August 11, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
2D — Well, the government has done every bit as much to deserve it as the kid. Plus it’ll use it to finance roads and schools and sometimes ill-conceived wars, not to buy a liver on the black market to replace the cirrhotic one it got from spending it’s teens and twenties pounding liquor with Daddy’s money and sleeping around with other trust fund babies.
My argument for estate taxes? Two words: Paris Hilton.
By blablabla
August 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
billy - the gov’t does tax income. this is why i’m against having such a progressive income tax structure. it is incredibly difficult to be upwardly mobile when paying such a high percentage of your marginal earnings in tax.
also, income often has very little to do with wealth. my income puts me in the top 1% of all wage earners in this country. but i’m only 30 and haven’t earned that level of income for a long enough period to have built any substantial wealth. i am taxed like i’m a rich person, yet i am not.
But if someone is leaving $100 million to an only child, by all means tax it. The child has done no more to earn the money than anyone else alive but will still have plenty left over after the tax to buy a small island in the Carribbean, build a large house on it, and make weekly jaunts in one of the yachts in his or her fleet.
i have a significant problem with this. not necessarily the concept of taxing the transfer of wealth, but what appears to be the reason for wanting to tax the wealth in your example.
By lozen
August 11, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
“Your taxes are due a week from today. You can make out your check directly to Halliburton. Or you can do what I’m going to do. I’m filing my first joint return. No, I’m not getting married, I’m sending the IRS an actual joint with a note that says, ‘If you think I’m paying for this war, you must be high.’” —Bill Maher
By lozen
August 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
“Vice President Dick Cheney’s getting a tax refund of $1.9 million. How do you get a $1.9 million refund when your salary is $205,000 a year? How does that work? … Apparently, he’s writing off the guns and ammo as business expenses.” —Jay Leno
By Billy
August 11, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Bla, that’s not my reason for taxing it. But when people who do that sort of thing complain about the tax, I don’t really feel that much sympathy for them.
Again, with the estate tax, I’m fine with exemptions up to a point.and I think more emphasis should be placed on the amount going to the individual heirs than the total amount being bequeathed. If someone has a $250 million estate and, instead of leaving his 5 kids $50 million each, leaves them $5 million each and leaves the rest to various charities, we shouhldn’t tax it all as a $250 million estate, but as $5 million for each of the guy’s children.
By lozen
August 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
“President Bush said yesterday it doesn’t make any sense to raise taxes on the rich because rich people can figure out how to dodge taxes. Then Dick Cheney said ‘Shut up! You’re ruining everything.’” —Jay Leno
By 2D
August 11, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Billy… I still don’t quite understand your logic for taxing an estate so help me out.
If parents purchase a house for their child, should the government collect taxes on that purchase?
If parents pay for their child to go to Stanford or Harvard or Duke, should the government collect taxes on that purchase?
If parents purchase a car for their child, should the government collect taxes on that purchase beyond the standard sales tax?
If parents start an investment account for their child at infancy, should the government collect taxes each time funds are contributed to that account?
By lozen
August 11, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the Income Tax.” — Albert Einstein
By blablabla
August 11, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
billy, how many people do you know, or have heard, inherit $100mm and complain about the estate tax? just curious.
2D - the logic is that the government wants your money. some wealth transfers are taxed like crazy while others are not. there is little consistency and even less reason. it’s the gov’t…what did you really expect?
By lozen
August 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
It’s simple 2D. The common people hate the rich because they’re rich and we aren’t so we want to tax the heck out of THEM. Who said, “Religion is the only thing that keeps the poor from killing the rich.”
By lozen
August 11, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
“Abracadabra, thus we learn the more you create, the less you earn. The less you earn, the more you’re given, the less you lead, the more you’re driven, the more destroyed, the more they feed, the more you pay, the more they need, the more you earn, the less you keep, And now I lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to take, if the tax-collector hasn’t got it before I wake.” — Ogden Nash
By lozen
August 11, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
“Worried about an IRS audit? Avoid what’s called a red flag. That’s something the IRS always looks for. For example, say you have some money left in your bank account after paying taxes. That’s a red flag.” — Jay Leno
By lozen
August 11, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
“The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it’s just sort of a tired feeling.” — Comedian
By lozen
August 11, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
I am working my fingers to the bone trying to come up with something funny about taxes and you guys don’t even have the courtesy to laugh! That’s it for you. Well, almost…
*If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it will always be yours. If it doesn’t come back, it was never yours to begin with.
But… If it just sits in your living room, messes up your stuff, eats your food, uses your telephone, takes your money, and doesn’t appear to realize that you actually set it free in the first place, you either married it or gave birth to it.
Either of which is probably tax deductible.*
By lozen
August 11, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Okay, just one more….
A man walks into a market followed by his ten-year-old son. The kid is spinning a quarter in the air and catching it between his teeth. As they walk through the market someone bumps into the boy at just the wrong moment and the coin goes straight into his mouth and lodges in his throat. He immediately starts choking and going blue in the face and Dad starts panicking, shouting and screaming for help. A middle-aged, fairly unnoticeable man in a gray suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading his newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, he looks up, puts his coffee cup down on the saucer, neatly folds his newspaper and places it on the counter. He gets up from his seat and makes his unhurried way across the market. Reaching the boy, the man carefully takes hold of the kid’s testicles and squeezes gently but firmly. After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the quarter, which the man catches in his free hand. Releasing the boy, the man hands the coin to the father and walks back to his seat in the coffee bar without saying a word. As soon as he’s sure his son has suffered no lasting ill-effects, the father rushes over to the man and starts effusively thanking him saying “I’ve never seen anybody do anything like that before. It was fantastic! Are you a doctor?” “Oh, good heavens, no,” the man replies, “I work for the Internal Revenue Service.” (If he were really an IRS agent he would have kept the quarter wouldn’t he?)
By Billy
August 11, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
If parents start an investment account for their child at infancy, should the government collect taxes each time funds are contributed to that account?
Well, in this case, the government does collect taxes when the money is used.
Look, in a perfect world there’s no need for taxes. There’s also plenty of food for everyone, plenty of jobs, clean air and water, and no one ever tries to hurt anyone. The roads are paved by angels riding on unicorns. The fact of the matter is that we, as John said, need money to keep our society going. Is there fat we could trim? Of course. But the fact that money could be spent more wisely in no way that money isn’t necessary.
And when money is necessary, do you go to someone who uses every little bit he has or do you go to someone who has money to burn? (Literally.) The rich complain about being taxed at a higher rate. I’d argue that they’ve benefitted more from our country than the average person. has. Their children especially have, since they may stand to inherit tens of millions of dollars (or more) without ever having to lift a finger to do so.
And these are who we’re talking about. We’re not talking about my wife and me starting a 529 for our son with $1500. We’re talking about massive amounts of money that the child did nothing to earn and will never need. And it’s not like we’re tlaking about taking it all away. They’ll still have plenty left over. And as John pointed out, there are plenty of loopholes — trusts and the like — that the rich can use to stash plenty of money where Uncle Sam will never touch it. That’s why they have accountants who know about those things. Their kids will be fine. You can be successful when you get a few million dollars unless you’re dumb or lazy.
By Billy
August 11, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
bla, I don’t know of anyone that’s inherited that much and complained about it. Honestly, it seems like the ones who really complain about it are the ones who like to think that someday it might apply to them.
Yes, the government wants your money. It needs it. As I said, some fat can definitely be cut, but we still need money. Where should that burden fall? On the poor, who have no money? The middle class, who is trying to maintain a decent quality of life when costs are going up much faster than salaries? Or the 2% of the richest Americans who have plenty of money and who are seeing their earnings increase faster than ever?
If the money has to come from somewhere…
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
The rich could be like The Stanley Tool company, who made alot of money from having American consumers, like many rich became rich from having American businesses, and THEN seriously considered moving from their CT HQTRS, to the Cayman Islands(or some tax shelter place like that) just to avoid US income taxes.
LOZEN - had to share your ‘wages of sin’ tax joke all over the office. And am off to get another bldg with it. LOL
and this is from high school If you love something, set it free. If it does not come back to you, hunt it down and shoot it.
By NetBanker
August 11, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Lozen…I’ve LOVED all your tax jokes. I’m just WAAAAYYY over my head today. Apparently my boss thinks that I have the ability to affect the time/space continuum to the point that I can deliver the project already on my plate in addition to the 2 she threw at me Wed and Thurs all by the middle of next week even though I told her that each one was approximately 25-40 hours worth of work.
BLA…if you’re in the top 1% of income earners technically you ARE rich. You just haven’t accumulated wealth. I’m not in the top 20% of income earners (as best as I could figure out from the census pages, but I might be wrong), but at 39 have a net worth over $500K. I qualify as wealthy, but not rich. See the difference? (grin)
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Congressmen have such a hard life:
http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20060805/8.html
By Billy
August 11, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
I’m in the top 1% of income earners in my household…
By blablabla
August 11, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
net, as best i can say i think we probably have different definitions of wealth. and yes, i see your point (grin). i don’t consider myself a rich guy by any means, but i do have a high income. the problem that i have is that so many out there seem to think high income equates to high net worth. i will consistently pay more in taxes than somebody who has a far greater net worth than i do but earns a lower income. so are we really taxing the wealthy, or are we taxing the upwardly mobile high achievers? certainly these aren’t mutually exclusive groups, but it seems to me that it’s more of the latter.
bla, I don’t know of anyone that’s inherited that much and complained about it.
so really, in all fairness, you’re arguing against a straw man.
to be clear, i don’t disagree that wealthy people can pay more in tax than a poor person. in my mind that is obvious. and that if money is needed by the gov’t, it should certainly turn to its wealthiest citizens first. however, there are two points i would make:
1) i’m not sure i agree that the gov’t needs money. as you even suggest, there is fat that can be cut. money is wasted. furthermore i think the gov’t spends an exorbinant amount on things that it probably shouldn’t be involved in, and this runs in conjunction with my longstanding belief of a limited gov’t. if you look at gov’t spending, it has grown at a far greater rate than GDP. in the long run, that is unsustainable. no one, not a person, a company, or a nation, can borrow and spend its way into prosperity.
2) secondly, no matter how much i, or anyone else pays in taxes, it will never be enough. the gov’t will always say it needs more. people will always be clamoring that the wealthy aren’t paying “their fair share”. but there’s never much in the way of definition of fair share.
By Chilao
August 11, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
I’m in the top 1% of income earners in my household…
those dang misleading statistics again. LOL
By Donna
August 11, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Well said Jack and I agree!
By The72John
August 11, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
2) secondly, no matter how much i, or anyone else pays in taxes, it will never be enough. the gov’t will always say it needs more. people will always be clamoring that the wealthy aren’t paying “their fair share”. but there’s never much in the way of definition of fair share.
This is a fatalist attitude, if I ever saw one. Presumably, with a balanced budget there is, in fact, a potential finite number that represents the amount of taxes needed.
As to the other statement - perhaps if it weren’t for the fact that the current administration has been handing out tax break after tax break that affects only the top percentage of wage earners, and has been showering corporations with tax breaks and incentives while middle class salaries are not even keeping pace with inflation - just perhaps people wouldn’t have the attitude you describe.
By Billy
August 11, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
i will consistently pay more in taxes than somebody who has a far greater net worth than i do but earns a lower income. so are we really taxing the wealthy, or are we taxing the upwardly mobile high achievers?
You’re correct. The estate tax, on the other hand, pretty much just addresses the wealthy.
so really, in all fairness, you’re arguing against a straw man.
You’ll have to explain that further…My point was that while I can’t recall a specific person complaining about how the Estate Tax will affect him, I do recall many occasions where people who will almost certainly never be affected by the tax rant and rave about it. This tax is exclusively applied to the extremely wealthy, yet the bulk of those who oppose it is made up of the middle class.
I’m not sure I was setting up a straw man argument there. If I did it was unintentional and just me losing focus on the point or something…
By Billy
August 11, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Good points, John.
By blablabla
August 11, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
of course it’s a fatalist attitude, john. the gov’t never stops taxing me, never gets its hands out of my pocket. it’s always looking for more. what i pay is never enough. in complete candor, the gov’t is relentlessly after money.
i haven’t looked it up in quite some time, but i don’t recall that there has been a decline in total national debt in quite some time, and even if it went down one year, it keeps climbing the year after, regardless of the political climate of the day. so the concept of a balanced budget, something we would probably both agree is wonderful, is sadly unrealistic. furthermore our national debt doesn’t even reflect the tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities this nation has. so if this leads me to my fatalistic attitude about gov’t finances and its relentless need to acquire funds (from all of us), you at least have my reasoning.
As to the other statement - perhaps if it weren’t for the fact that the current administration has been handing out tax break after tax break that affects only the top percentage of wage earners, and has been showering corporations with tax breaks and incentives while middle class salaries are not even keeping pace with inflation - just perhaps people wouldn’t have the attitude you describe.
perhaps, but in my mind the complaints of people not paying their fair share far pre-dates GWB. you may disagree…but i think the class and wealth envy that drive those sentiments have been around for awhile.
You’re correct. The estate tax, on the other hand, pretty much just addresses the wealthy.
yes, billy, but i’m trying to become wealthy. my point on the straw man was simply that you’re bringing up a situation to beat it down (rich kid inheriting tons of money and complaining about the estate tax) that you’ve never actually heard or encountered, and may not even exist in any kind of material number. it’s an attack on a rare outlier.
people moan about the estate tax because they have goals of one day having that kind of wealth. and up until not all that long ago, the limits weren’t all that high. it used to kick in at around $1.5 million less than ten years ago. the gov’t will move it up from time to time, but let’s be honest, it’s incented not to in order to capture more tax dollars. this was my point in bringing up the AMT example earlier.
By Billy
August 11, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
Bla — fair enough. I guess what I can’t understand about people is that they would rather rant and rave against something that will likely never hurt them than accept something that is not entirely unreasonable in return for things like roads, schools, and the military.
I can understand wanting to keep the money you earn. Everyone wants to. But there are things that we have to pay for. I’m all for cutting spending, but, like most people, I’d like to see it done a certain way. And you can’t separate GWB from this discussion at this point in time. It’s under this administration that spennding has really skyrocketed, and while 9/11 does provide a bit of an excuse, the way he and his administration have handled things since have only exacerbated the problem as far as spending is concerned.
By Flow
August 11, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this
Filen dank, beby.. Attorney Employment Estonia Law,
Bitte!