Minimum Wage Held Hostage

[dalegg 143]

Raising minimum wage hurts those it intends to help. By making those jobs more valuable, it makes the undesirable even less desirable in the workforce, because while a company may be willing to pay a certain amount to such an undesirable individual, they're not going to be willing to pay more and will instead be looking for someone more qualified to take over that more expensive job.

x amount for payroll = y amount of employees.

raise the minimum amount for x = less y

follow that, steven?

Nah...

See what's going to happen is that the businesses and corporations will go ahead and sacrifice their profits to make up for the difference. For public companies, stock owners will forgive the loss of value in large companies and continue to invest despite losing money because it will be good for society, and world hunger will end, Israelis and Palestineans will live in harmony, North and South Korea will unite, and every country will destroy their missle arsenals.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Raising minimum wage hurts those it intends to help. By making those jobs more valuable, it makes the undesirable even less desirable in the workforce, because while a company may be willing to pay a certain amount to such an undesirable individual, they're not going to be willing to pay more and will instead be looking for someone more qualified to take over that more expensive job.

x amount for payroll = y amount of employees.

raise the minimum amount for x = less y

follow that, steven?

Charles, the question is how to pay employee's what they are worth? Do you think it would be fair for a business to pay someone $2 a day if they could get away with it? I realize there's no easy answers but simply relying on the market to dictate pay is not going to work either.

Would you sell something for less than what it is worth? If so, how long could you keep up doing that before you have nothing left?

Raising minimum wage hurts those it intends to help. By making those jobs more valuable, it makes the undesirable even less desirable in the workforce, because while a company may be willing to pay a certain amount to such an undesirable individual, they're not going to be willing to pay more and will instead be looking for someone more qualified to take over that more expensive job.

x amount for payroll = y amount of employees.

raise the minimum amount for x = less y

follow that, steven?

Nah...

See what's going to happen is that the businesses and corporations will go ahead and sacrifice their profits to make up for the difference. For public companies, stock owners will forgive the loss of value in large companies and continue to invest despite losing money because it will be good for society, and world hunger will end, Israelis and Palestineans will live in harmony, North and South Korea will unite, and every country will destroy their missle arsenals.

I had a hard time figuring just who was drinking the kool-aid with your avatar, but now I see you're kool-aid drinking Republican...figures.

[dalegg 143]

I had a hard time figuring just who was drinking the kool-aid with your avatar, but now I see you're kool-aid drinking Republican...figures.

Well that sure rebutted my arguement well. Oh yeah!!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I had a hard time figuring just who was drinking the kool-aid with your avatar, but now I see you're kool-aid drinking Republican...figures.

Well that sure rebutted my arguement well. Oh yeah!!!!

You want me to rebut your Palestinians and Israeli's living in harmony because of a minimum wage increase?

[Canuck Carrie 1]

They don't raise minimum wage so that "Mr. Slightly Retarded" can wipe tables?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Raising minimum wage hurts those it intends to help. By making those jobs more valuable, it makes the undesirable even less desirable in the workforce, because while a company may be willing to pay a certain amount to such an undesirable individual, they're not going to be willing to pay more and will instead be looking for someone more qualified to take over that more expensive job.

x amount for payroll = y amount of employees.

raise the minimum amount for x = less y

follow that, steven?

Charles, the question is how to pay employee's what they are worth? Do you think it would be fair for a business to pay someone $2 a day if they could get away with it? I realize there's no easy answers but simply relying on the market to dictate pay is not going to work either.

Would you sell something for less than what it is worth? If so, how long could you keep up doing that before you have nothing left?

as i thought, you missed it.

ok numbers this time.......

you have a business that employs let's say 10 people, each making $2000 a month. your payroll means you have 20,000 a month for that (payrolls operate on a budget now, remember that). now if you have to raise the amount paid....someone or several someones have to go to keep that payroll at or under $20,000 a month. otherwise, you'll be in the red. understand?

[Traviesa 0]

They don't raise minimum wage so that "Mr. Slightly Retarded" can wipe tables?

Yup, because if he/she is not able to get that wiping tables job, someone has to take care of them.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

They don't raise minimum wage so that "Mr. Slightly Retarded" can wipe tables?

Yup, because if he/she is not able to get that wiping tables job, someone has to take care of them.

yeah, now instead of that guy we can have surely college students doing that.

[Traviesa 0]

They don't raise minimum wage so that "Mr. Slightly Retarded" can wipe tables?

Yup, because if he/she is not able to get that wiping tables job, someone has to take care of them.

yeah, now instead of that guy we can have surely college students doing that.

Actually, I did do that in college. I worked at McD's in Vienna, WV for $5.15 an hour, and sometimes I was on lobby. But you have to understand the difference in place and economy-McD's front of house was actually somewhat of a glamor job, mostly held by students.

[dalegg 143]

You want me to rebut your Palestinians and Israeli's living in harmony because of a minimum wage increase?

No, I want you to tell me why this statement:

businesses and corporations will go ahead and sacrifice their profits to make up for the difference. For public companies, stock owners will forgive the loss of value in large companies and continue to invest despite losing money because it will be good for society

Is not as unrealistic as the Palestinians and Isreali's living in harmony and all that other stuff I said happening simultaneously. Sorry, I didn't realize I would have to explain that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Raising minimum wage hurts those it intends to help. By making those jobs more valuable, it makes the undesirable even less desirable in the workforce, because while a company may be willing to pay a certain amount to such an undesirable individual, they're not going to be willing to pay more and will instead be looking for someone more qualified to take over that more expensive job.

x amount for payroll = y amount of employees.

raise the minimum amount for x = less y

follow that, steven?

Charles, the question is how to pay employee's what they are worth? Do you think it would be fair for a business to pay someone $2 a day if they could get away with it? I realize there's no easy answers but simply relying on the market to dictate pay is not going to work either.

Would you sell something for less than what it is worth? If so, how long could you keep up doing that before you have nothing left?

as i thought, you missed it.

ok numbers this time.......

you have a business that employs let's say 10 people, each making $2000 a month. your payroll means you have 20,000 a month for that (payrolls operate on a budget now, remember that). now if you have to raise the amount paid....someone or several someones have to go to keep that payroll at or under $20,000 a month. otherwise, you'll be in the red. understand?

Let's take your business model and you're the business owner. Could you go to one of your suppliers and tell him you can't pay him what he's charging because you can't afford it? Could you call up the electric company and tell them you're not paying your bill because you can't afford it? All those involved in your business are expected a fair operational cost that you incur as a business. While I understand that labor cost is more fluid, you still have to recognize that your workers be paid a fair amount for what they are contributing to your company, otherwise you're bilking them. You couldn't do that to you suppliers nor should you be able to do that with your employees.

No, I want you to tell me why this statement:

businesses and corporations will go ahead and sacrifice their profits to make up for the difference. For public companies, stock owners will forgive the loss of value in large companies and continue to invest despite losing money because it will be good for society

And do you have an example of this happening in reality? What's been happening instead of your fantasy is that CEO's salaries have increased from about 40:1 ratio to the lowest paid employee in the 60's to over 200:1. How do you explain such a lopsided pay ratio when labor is the same? Are employee doing less while CEO's do more for companies? Conventional wisdom says those ratios should have remained relatively the same. What changed? And how many companies do you really think are going to suffer from raising the minimum wage as if they are scraping by to make ends meet?

[dalegg 143]

No, I want you to tell me why this statement:

businesses and corporations will go ahead and sacrifice their profits to make up for the difference. For public companies, stock owners will forgive the loss of value in large companies and continue to invest despite losing money because it will be good for society

And do you have an example of this happening in reality?

um, no. That's my point. You did understand I was being sarcastic, right?

What's been happening instead of your fantasy is that CEO's salaries have increased from about 40:1 ratio to the lowest paid employee in the 60's to over 200:1. How do you explain such a lopsided pay ratio when labor is the same? Are employee doing less while CEO's do more for companies? Conventional wisdom says those ratios should have remained relatively the same. What changed?

I don't know- greed? I'm not arguing one bit of what you say here. What I'm trying to tell you is that it is not going to change, even if your raise minimum wages. Companies will remain profitable. If they are public, they have an accountability to their stock holders. It's just the way it is. If they have to cut costs to keep expenses down, employees are the first to go.

And how many companies do you really think are going to suffer from raising the minimum wage as if they are scraping by to make ends meet?

None will suffer. They will lay off employees. There are more and more innovations taking place that will allow for this. Have you seen the self checkout counters at Wal-Mart and Home Depot? Imagine a lot more of those.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

it is not going to change, even if your raise minimum wages. Companies will remain profitable. If they are public, they have an accountability to their stock holders. It's just the way it is. If they have to cut costs to keep expenses down, employees are the first to go.

The bigger argument which really keeps people like you and I from seeing eye to eye on this is what kind of market do we want? I'm going to assume that you support a free market capitalism where profit is the ultimate factor, while I believe that in order for us to have a sustainable economy we have to protect our interests through fair regulations. I love competition and support it when it exists so it's about making it a fair market. You can't compete with your neighbor is he's set up shop in Bangladesh where he can get away with paying someone less than a dollar a day. What I see is that when companies are only having to answer to their shareholders and in essence profit, then we've lost the battle of having a sustainable economy. There was a time when the model of a company took care of it's employees and didn't treat them as expendible. Some would argue that model cannot remain competitive in the global market, yet there are examples of such companies which do. If you don't believe a company has any responsability to it's employees than I don't know if there's any use in continue this debate.

Edited August 7, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[dalegg 143]

The bigger argument which really keeps people like you and I from seeing eye to eye on this is what kind of market do we want? I'm going to assume that you support a free market capitalism where profit is the ultimate factor, while I believe that in order for us to have a sustainable economy we have to protect our interests through fair regulations.

I think you misunderstand me entirely. I'm not trying to pass on an opinion as to what type of society I want at all. I am merely stating what type of society we have, and what I believe the implications of trying to make social changes to the system we have are.

For example, everyone understands the negative impacts to wages that illegal labor causes. It would be helpful if that didn't exist- but it does, and it doesn't look like our fearless leader is doing a lot to stop it. If you make legal labor more expensive this will obviously increase the temptation for employers to either go after illegal labor- or legal guest workers who may have different Federal requirements. You cannot just go changing one part of the system to the way you ultimately want it when there are other existing factors in place that will cause your plan to blow up in your face. Yeah, yeah- Employers need to face the consequences, yadda yadda yadda, but how many get away with it now? You have to work with the situation you have, not the situation you want.

But this is my theory. We can all sit back and see what happens in Illinois then we can have a model to look at- sort of.

One part of what you say that does sit uneasy with me is regarding the Estate tax. I first heard your reasoning for keeping it on Air America and I have to say I am shocked at this opionion. It seems to be that someone's heirs are not entitled to their wealth because they didn't earn it- that whatever is left of someone when they die should go back to the state. My God, isn't this something Ho Chi Minh said? On this part, I will just have to disagree with you.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The bigger argument which really keeps people like you and I from seeing eye to eye on this is what kind of market do we want? I'm going to assume that you support a free market capitalism where profit is the ultimate factor, while I believe that in order for us to have a sustainable economy we have to protect our interests through fair regulations.

I think you misunderstand me entirely. I'm not trying to pass on an opinion as to what type of society I want at all. I am merely stating what type of society we have, and what I believe the implications of trying to make social changes to the system we have are.

For example, everyone understands the negative impacts to wages that illegal labor causes. It would be helpful if that didn't exist- but it does, and it doesn't look like our fearless leader is doing a lot to stop it. If you make legal labor more expensive this will obviously increase the temptation for employers to either go after illegal labor- or legal guest workers who may have different Federal requirements. You cannot just go changing one part of the system to the way you ultimately want it when there are other existing factors in place that will cause your plan to blow up in your face. Yeah, yeah- Employers need to face the consequences, yadda yadda yadda, but how many get away with it now? You have to work with the situation you have, not the situation you want.

But this is my theory. We can all sit back and see what happens in Illinois then we can have a model to look at- sort of.

One part of what you say that does sit uneasy with me is regarding the Estate tax. I first heard your reasoning for keeping it on Air America and I have to say I am shocked at this opionion. It seems to be that someone's heirs are not entitled to their wealth because they didn't earn it- that whatever is left of someone when they die should go back to the state. My God, isn't this something Ho Chi Minh said? On this part, I will just have to disagree with you.

Demanding employers pay fair wages should not be determined by such things as fear of it creating more of a vacuum for illegal labor. It's a matter of standing on principal that I say as an American companies better damn well pay their employees what the labor is worth - plain and simple. Anything less is not different from theft in my opinion.

As for the estate tax - it's a question of whether you believe it's okay to allow a family to accumilate wealth to infinity. We know from history that in societies where that happens you have an oligarchy. There are 18 prominent families that have been behind the push to get rid of the estate tax. As I mentioned earlier, Bill Gates, Sr. is a proponent of the estate tax because he believes it is fair.

The multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.

It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.

The report profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell’s soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world’s largest retailer.

These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind – the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.

In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.

“This report exposes one of the biggest con jobs in recent history,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “This long-running, secretive campaign funded by some of the country’s wealthiest families has relied on deception to bamboozle the public not only about who must pay the estate tax, but about how repealing it will affect the country.”

Said Lee Farris, senior organizer for estate tax policy at UFE, “It’s time for the majority of Americans who support the estate tax to speak out, and not let a handful of wealthy families sway Congress to twist the tax laws for their own benefit. Polls now show that most Americans support this tax and the revenue it yields to pay for vital services, especially given our nation’s huge deficit.”

While they extol the hard work of individual farmers and small businesses, most of the 18 families have been wealthy for generations; only five still include the people who first earned the family fortune. Members of the families are far less likely than most Americans to have paid taxes on their wealth; to a large extent, that wealth lies in assets that have appreciated but, unlike paychecks, have never been taxed.

These super-rich families have spent millions in personal wealth and used their companies’ resources and lobbying power in repeated attempts to influence members of Congress to repeal the tax. They have financed groups who have launched multimillion-dollar attack ads against Republican and Democratic senators alike, including former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Olympia Snow (R-Maine), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Lincoln Chaffee (R-R.I.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

The stakes of the campaign are great, not only for the super-wealthy families, but for the public. If the families’ repeal bid succeeds, it will cost the U.S. Treasury a trillion dollars in the first decade – roughly what it would cost to provide health insurance for every uninsured person in the United States.

“The estate tax should be regarded as just paying back to the country for all the wonderful things it’s made possible for the people who have that wealth,” said Bill Gates Sr. in an audio statement played at the press conference. “I don’t think there’s any great societal goal being served by inherited wealth. And certainly there’s no sensible argument that I can think of for insisting on being able to pass the last penny of $100 million on to your three kids.”

Added Elizabeth Letzler, an investment manager from New York who will be subject to the estate tax and who spoke at the press conference, “The current estate tax structure should permit any wealthy household to pass on a legacy of financial security, education and family heirlooms to the next generations.” She challenged the families showcased in the report: “Do something spectacular during your life-time investing in the social welfare and well-being of the children and grandchildren at the bottom of the pyramid.” Her daughter Stephanie, also in attendance, said, “If keeping the estate tax means a step closer to a debt-free treasury, a step closer to improved health care, Social Security, education, and every other program that makes me proud to be an American, show me where to sign the check.”

Paul Newman, actor and founder of Newman’s Own food company, agreed in a separate statement: “For those of us lucky enough to be born in this country and to have flourished here, the estate tax is a reasonable and appropriate way to return something to the common good. I’m proud to be among those supporting preservation of this tax, which is one of the fairest taxes we have.”

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2182

Edited August 8, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky