In 1916, a labor organizer named Jane Street developed a system in Denver that attempted to raise the wages and working conditions of domestic help. It seems that she recognized the validity of the ideas in the last paragraph of the quoted text in my last post:
Was there anything underhanded about Jane Street's tactics.....IMO, no more underhanded than upperclass employers of domestic workers dictating wage levels, work day and work week length, and working conditions....

The point is that there is power in numbers who support a labor, or any political movement. Those who do not have then numbers, supplant that shortcoming with resources....money, lawyers, lobbyists, political contributions to election campaigns. Those with money and influence are simply better at "the game", than unorganized, apolitical, individual minimum wage earning workers are. There is nothing to debate about the power of sheer numbers of voters, IMO, being swept aside by a small class of moneyed interests that buy the political clout away from the hands of the workers.

<a href="http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=2712">ACORN</a> was the organization behind the successful minimum wage referendum in Florida. When elected representatives refuse to represent the interest of the working poor, this seems a logical development to catalyze grassroots efforts....and they are active again in several states in the coming elections:
If you're not objecting to the consequences of capitalism....or of the political influence that those who control the means of production, routinely buy, and
you agree that,
....what could you object to with regard to organized workers successfully achieving ballot initiatives....referendums that are "end runs" around legislators who have agreed to be bought by their wealtheist constituency, instead of serving the best interests of the voters who elected them. Did credit card interest rates come down, after Sen. Joe Biden (MBNA-DE) voted for bankruptcy "reform", along with 14 other democrats and more than 50 republican senators...all ignoring a Harvard study that found that the majority of bankruptcies were illness related....they voted down an illness exemption and passed the "reform...."
<a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA022306.1E.foreclosures.17009671.html">Bankruptcy Rules Feed Foreclosures</a>

Why are those who object to legislated minimum wage increases, not also objecting to draconian bankruptcy "reform" that benefited only banks like MBNA, at the expense of the poor, the laid off, and the sick, of Biden's Deleware constituency?

Thanks for the info and clarification smooth. I think it may be two different things though. I realize that the article Cyn posted was referring to the corporate buy out. But seem to recall an article or something that discussed their business model. That's what I was thinking of. But you guys have piqued my curiousity so now I'm off to wikipedia it!

Interestingly, it does stand to reason that if that many companies were interested in owning shares of B & J, then they must have been doing well (i.e. - their business model worked), unless they were not and they just planned to sell them off. But it appears they are doing just fine under the new ownership.

Oh yeah, it's nice to see you posting again smooth :)

I like the way you refused to answer the question I posed, and instead defend the CEO.

I know what a CEO does, some do add to the company, some only add as much as their best advisors allow them to.

Yes, I do believe that most CEO's are paid what they are because they can get away with it. In the past when the ratios were closer no.... in today's economy not a doubt in my mind.

Yes, a CEO can make an 8, 9, 10 digit salary, I don't care as long as the workers in his company are making a liveable wage and not working 40 hours paycheck to paycheck because the company pays them shit wages.

Now answer the question: Why is this so wrong to expect from companies that pay their CEOs more in 1 day than they pay their workers in a year?

By the way, how much is too much for you? How much of the payroll percantage should the CEO be allowed to make?


Tell me what is wrong with this belief, if you can without a personal attack without having to try to treat me as if I have no idea what I am talking about... because as I have said in the past I have been there, I have been in upper management/ownership.

It is said by Limbaugh that in taxes the government is spending our money because they feel they can spend it better...... I can agree with what he says to a point.... BUT I also state the rich do the same thing by controlling and hoarding the wealth.

To me, if you gave a raise to the 1,000 employees in my example instead of to 1 person, you have 1,000 people who are able to spend more, keep shops open and let the community's economy grow.

By giving that 1 million to 1 person, and not increasing anyone else's wages (except for maybe a minimal amount that isn't even up to inflationary standards) you do not help the community in any way.

With those 1,000 you have the oppurtunity for 1,000 people investing in businesses, land, saving for their kids college, etc. A tax base that increases and community that grows.

By giving it to 1 person, only that 1 person invests, the workers still barely make it, their debt increases because inflation is more than their increases, the tax base stagnates and the community dies.

Sorry but without those producing the goods, storing the goods, selling the goods, the CEOs aren't worth shit.

Eventually, the workers will awaken to this and 1 of 2 things will happen, the CEO's will take their balls and go to another country and leave this one to go bankrupt or the CEOs will realize they need to balance the wealth out to a degree where, yes those CEOs still make the most but the workers are making enough to be content and live comfortably.

My money (if I were still a betting man) would be that the CEO's will be parasites, feasting on whatever they can get here and moving on the second they have taken all they ccan, having put the barest minimum into the system that supported them.

I just believe wealth should be spread out more and in the process communities grow. Today's business environment does not afford growth of any nature except the the wallets of the very rich.

Obviously when the "average" CEO is making more in 1 day than the "average" worker and the corporations and companies see nothing wrong in this..... Government needs to step in because the corporations and those running them obviously care nothing about the people, the market nor policing themselves to share the wealth.

Youre consumed by class envy. Why do you care what a CEO makes in a large corp? Fact is, they work harder than your typical 95er who dont let the door hit them in the ass the minute 5PM comes around

Obviously NCB you didn't read the whole post because I started by saying this:

Still didn't answer the question and sounds to me like you suffer from class envy and prejudice.

Why is it so wrong to expect in this country that a person working 40 hours a week make liveable wages and not have to go into debt, not have to have their intelligence or desires questioned? But it is ok to pay a CEO more in one day than that worker makes in a year?

Why is that wrong NCB??????

As a 9-5'er I take great offense to what you just said and most of the people I know and work with take pride in their jobs.

You don't debate anything I have put forth, all you do is attack and make ludicrous statements.

So either debate or walk away..... doing nothing but making the above statement shows how weak your defense of this system we now have,is.

Youre not taking into account the perspective from the labor supply/demand side of it. Employers shouldnt have to pay for someones lifestyle for just showing up. Its the workers responsibilty to earn his keep, not the employers. Its really that simple

The worker earns his or her keep every day that the company doesn't go bankrupt. The worker holds the upper managment on his or her back. Upper managment doesn't talk to pissed off customers or do heavy lifting. Any success that the company has is a direct result of the grunts. You know what the scary thing is? I'm upper, upper managment. I'm right under the CEO of a very succesful company. The reason I got to and kept my position is that I understand that a company only works as well as it's weakest or least compensated employee. If you aren't payed enough or are dumped on by idiot bosses, you'll onyl work just hard enough not to get fired (I learned that from Office Space, a prolific movie). If you're compensated and treated fairly, you're more likely to spend your time doing your work instead of griping and being pissed.

It's that attitude right there that is starting to be seen coming from the GOP and will get them kicked out of power.

Because in all honesty, if you are telling me that working 40 hours a week I still shouldn't be able to earn a living and should bow down to the employer that makes more in 1 day than I do a year...... I'm willing to go do all I can to go socialistic and that would include organizing revolt and speaking out.

If a man works 40 hours and puts in a decent honest days work, NO ONE should ask for more and he should be rewarded with a decent honest wage. If not then there is no sense working 40 hours, showing any kind of company loyalty or caring about the quality of work. Because if a company is as egotistical as you state then they don't give a damn about the worker so why should the worker give a damn about the company?

Lennon said it best:

A million workers working for nothing
You better give 'em what they really own
We got to put you down
When we come into town
Singing power to the people
JOHN LENNON (1940-1980)

We're coming at this from 2 different perspectives. You think that corporations exist in order to provide a wage and benes for a worker. I think that they exist in order to turn a profit for its owners and shareholders. That is an enormous gulf between our two ways of thinking. People who work 40 hours and dont have the door hit them in the ass at 5PM sharp dont deserve anything any sympathy from their employers. Those people tend to take more than give to a corporation and deserve nothing but contempt, not empathy, for demanding more $$$, benes, or whatever.

And oh, I'd be careful living by the socialistic words of a dead multimillionaire artist. Something about the hypocrisy just reeks up the board

Will, your idealism is very touching, but I think it has more to do with your youth. Not sure what kind of company has a 23 yo as an "upper, upper management" employee, but one day you will learn that no matter how well you pay and treat an employee, they are still not invested into your company. When you deal with good size number of employees, you will have 1, 2, or 3 that will but into you and the company's vision, but the rest will just shit on you when they get the chance. Stick around the business world a while and you'll see what I mean

1. I do agree that you will always have a certain percentage of employees that just use the job, however that is no reason to provoke the majority by treating and paying them all shit wages and benefits. And as long as someone puts in their 40 hours of honest work, they deserve an honest wage anything less, is wrong, morally and socially. Weed out those who don't give you an honest days work.

And just because someone uses the job, may not be a bad thing. It maybe a springboard for them and they are using it for experience or to move forward in a field they like better. Employers use and exploit the worker every time they pay the employee barely enough to live on and allow their CEO to make in 1 day more than the average worker does in a year.

All I'm saying is there needs to be a better more sustainable balance.... because the balance that exists right now is so far weighted in one direction that you breed contempt.

2. In order to produce a profit for the owners and shareholders, you must have a product that sells, if you do not pay your staff enough to live and afford your product you will eventually cease to exist, because in the vast majority of things, if your own workers won't buy it, no one will. No one advertises as great as your employees.

3. Contempt bornes contempt, if you have contempt for your employees, they will in turn have contempt for you. Conversely, if you treat your employees with respect, honesty and pay fairly you'll get back hard, honest loyal work.

You give employees enough to live on, show them with hard work and dedication they can move up and treat them with respect and dignity and I guarantee, you will have a very, very profitable business with a good reputation throughout the marketplace.

I've stated my business experience and record of my past enough that if you don't know it by now.... you can do the search. But I will reiterate that when I treated my employees great and paid them very good wages, I got hard work, loyalty and they made sure we got business. When I slacked and I treated them poorly.... well, they didn't care to help. The good ones saw a sinking ship and left and the bad ones stayed to make sure they could get all they could.
Really? Lennon wasn't that rich when he died. McCartney was the greedy one. Ono was/is just a step behind Paul. John himself, while I am sure enjoyed the money, did a hell of a lot for people. He could have done nothing, instead he chose to use his fame to try and better people's lives. Too bad more people aren't like him. I'd take his "hypocrasy" and a million more like him than 1 greedy assed bastard that has no caring and displays nothing but contempt for the worker.



This sounds like someone who has been burnt by a few employees and has become bitter. That happens. But not all employees are bad. Most just want to know they are appreciated and that their hard work doesn't go unnoticed.

As for being 23 and in "upper, upper management", I say congratulations Will and let your conscience guide you in dealing with your employees. Because in the end, money comes, money goes but you will forever have to live with yourself and your conscience.

I'm currently responsible for 45 people directly, and about 100 indirectly. I've been working since I was 13, and since I was hired in my current position, our yearly profit has more than doubled - that's probably why I'm Vice President. The company doesn't really have a vision, except to sell products and not hurt anyone...something that everyone can agree on. I've been shit on by bosses since I was 13. I found that bosses that were goal driven, but fair get better results than slave drivers. Also, people who work complain as a rule, and f that complaning is allowed to get out of control then it can be detrimental to the company (apathy is the worst thing for employees). The idea is to control complaining, keeping it to a minimum. How do we do that? We are the closest in our industry to paying our base level employees a living wage (they get $20/hr, and our best competition can barely do $12/hr). That also helps us coax a lot of experienced sales people over from other companies. I would feel badly about it, except I know the other company can afford to pay them better but they just don't.

Let me ask you this: are you more likely to do good work where you're not happy or where you are happy? It's a little more complicated than that, but I found it's the perfect place to start when considering employee potential. It may be niave, but it's working really well for us, as even correcting for income, we are more efficient than our competition.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to take care of each other. Other people are, ultimately, all we have in the world. I find it sad that so often people view each other as obstacles or things to manipulate and control.

Why shouldn't a CEO be interested in his employees' quality of life? Isn't that one of the responsibilities of a CEO, inside their overall responsibility to provide profit for the shareholders? Your employees have to be living adequately to at least get themselves to work and do the job they're there to do. And if they're treated well enough to have some loyalty and pride in their work, then that obviously shows up in the bottom line. That's certainly been the case in every job I've had, whether on the "manager" end or the "grunt" end. I don't see what's so hard about that.

Agree. BUt nothing in your statement supports the right of the government to tell a boss how much to pay his employees. It should be up to management to pay what they want to pay their employees. If they don't pay them fairly or "what their worth" then the employees will find another job, or not work hard/well and the company (and management) suffers. Why should the government dictate how much a boss must pay his workers?

I guess youre going to tell me next that your company is by far more profitable than your leading competitor, right?

So are you advocating a minimum wage of $20/hr? I'm a bit confused because this is a thread debating minimum wage. If you aren't advocating a $20/hr minimum wage, are you advocating a minimum wage at all? It looks from your position that you are in favor of workers getting paid a livable wage, which you state is $20/hr. If the minimum wage was increase to $12/hr and companies paid that, they'd still not be paying a "livable wage." Would the employees then be happy and more likely to do good work when they are getting paid the least amount allowed by law?

I don't think it should be the government that is forced to tell anyone what to pay...... however, because attitudes expressed by NCB seem to be more prevelant among employers we need the government to set wages because the companies refuse to police and enforce themselves when it comes to wages.

If companies started paying honest wages for an honest days work and those who work 40 hours a week could afford to live without going into debt... then the government would never be needed in this aspect.

but no one is forcing that employee to work that shitty job getting paid peanuts. He's not tied up with leg irons wishing he could escape. He's a willing participant in a contract. He can leave at any time.

But if all the companies hiring pay shitty wages, one still needs to at least make what one can, shitty wage or not.

So is it one big conspiracy amongst all companies colluding to keep wages low?

If you can't find a job that pays you enough than you either don't have any desireable skills, you aren't looking hard enough, or you just don't care. Why should someone with no desire to increase their value to employers by obtaining a desireable skill set be automatically compensated for "just showing up?"

Is that so unbelievable? Please don't tell me you're either so jaded or so partison that you're unwilling to accept that a company run with my beliefs can be succesful.

As I said, we're more efficient. For example, let's say that my company, Company A, and my competitor, Company B, are selling the same product. Let's say that Company A a better reputation and has more return customers than Company A becuase we train and treat our sales people better, who in turn are better with customers. Let's say that Company B has seen profits drop each year for the last 3 years. Let's say that, becuase of sales volume, Company A is able to undercut the pricing offered by Company B.

Which company do you think will do better?

If we are able to make over $15m profit a year, then why not let me have about $1.3m for my employees? Why not share in the spoils of our success?
No, I'm not saying that 20/hr should be minimum wage. I was responding to questions. As pan states, it's about being a responsible employer. Would we be able to p[ay $20/hr if we weren't as efficient? Probably not, but we make it clear to the employees that if they do well, the company does well, and it comes back to them. Most of the base workers at my company are younger than I am, and $20/hr is a fair wage for them considering a lot of them are part time and going to school (something our company reccomends for all employees).

Thats all fine and dandy, but this is a minimum wage thread, are you for or against a federally mandated minimum wage? If so, what should the minimum be?

I really like this idea, actually. I'm a bit iffy on minimum wage's reliability as a method of minimising the effects of poverty, and this is a new one for me.

Only issue I see with it is it potentially putting a cap on the size of a company - expanding into new markets often means more employees, and while the amount of work a CEO has increases, their 'value' remains the same. Not sure if this is a bad thing though (those dirty rich bastards!).

That's certainly the direction the invisible hand pushes. They put it in pretty terms like "cost reduction". What they mean is, treating employees like commodities instead of like human beings.

Personally, if I were a CEO, I would be willing to trade some profits for the benefit of having my employees be respected and treated well. Some investors would have a problem with that, to be sure, and I would advise them to invest in another company.

Now, every major company that I know of that follows that philosophy is also remarkably successful. CostCo comes to mind, just as one example.

A federally-mandated minimum wage prevents the most egregious abuses by corporations. It would be nice to think that a free labor market could take care of itself, but without massive overhauls in corporate structures and thinking, I don't see that happening.

Ok and exactly what jobs are out there that pay decent wages?

So you blame the worker and it's never the companies?

I am not pro-minimum wage. It is inherently a bad policy to have. It promotes companies to pay as little as possible. However, again, in the atmosphere we have now, the government must do the policing because private industry refuses to.

When my parents got married my father was a meter reader for the electric company and my mother was an operator for Ma Bell. They were in dead end jobs and knew it.

What was available to them were government programs that allowed employers to hire, train and promote growth in the workers.

Thus, my father was given the chance to become a land surveyor, train him help him through college and get more marketable skills. From there he was able to move onto becoming a civil engineer and then project manager, pretty much being able to dictate his price to companies that wanted his services. This continued to where he owns his own multi million dollar construction business.

My mother was able to be a housewife because of the oppurtunities the companies gave my dad. The companies were able to give my dad his start because the government provided the incentives to hire and train people.

My mother was able to use that system to when she was ready in the late 70's, through her desire she became an LPN, and then the hospital helped her through loans from them and grants and scholarships for good grades become an RN.

The point is with my examples is this..... because government promoted growth, companies promoted growth, tax base increased and it was a win-win situation for everybody.

Today, those incentives are gone. Government would rather just police a minimum wage and be done with it.

What I believe is if government allowed and promoted what happened for my dad and 1000's of others like him in the 70's to happen today and companies policed themselves and invested in the workers, then we wouldn't have a need for this discussion.

But neither the government nor the companies seem to want that. Instead they make it progressively harder to advance. Today, there would be no way my father could advance the way he did. The programs are not in place to promote the training, you need a college degree. No longer can you just be interviewed, have the boss like your drive and you be trained and then sent to college while doing the job.

Take my industry for example. Used to be that a person would get the on the job training, some college and be able to help addicts recover. Today, you need college, you need the hours in and when all is finished you make barely enough to pay off the loans and live. You are a professional, you had the drive, you worked your ass off and now you don't get rewarded for the hard work?

When you see the increases in CEO pay and the stagnant growth in wages for the worker and the disparity, there is a severe problem.

What happens as these good manufacturing jobs (and that is the true backbone to any country's economy) leave, and shit waged jobs come in, you are destroying yourself economically.

You say move to where the better paying jobs are..... ok let's say you can and do, then you flood that market and the wages decrease.

It is important for companies to hire people, train them and move them up. This doesn't happen when, like in today's marketplace, companies pay very little, offer little growth and try hard to get rid of people when they reach a certain point so that they can bring in someone else cheaper.

The system needs fixed, if the companies refuse to do it then government must.

The Libertarian in me thinks that companies should simply pay what's fair, but that won't happen. The former Democrat in me says that federal minimum wage should always be increased with inflation, but it causes inflation, too. The Republican in me says that it should be determined by the state, and we should invade Iran. The Green in me says it should be a cooperation between government, companies, and the individual, which is really vague.

Bottom line? I'm really not 100% sure. I know that what's succesful for me may not be succesful for everyone, and as such I can't just make a broad stroke generalization about income in the market. I think that no matter what, someone will probably be screwed by someone else, but I'm not sure what would allow for the least screwage. My guess would be that minimum wage isn't a really good idea, but (as Pan pointed out) companies aren't responsible enough to pay fair wages left to their own devices. It's like a turnmacate for a lost limb...it's good to keep it together on the way to the hospital, but the doctors must reattach the lim for everything to be okay again. Minimum wage is an okay way to hold us over for a short time until something better and more perminant can be developed.

and there are SOME companies that do that it's called profit sharing, then there are performance bonuses, and finally there are becoming shareholders by buying discounted stock purchases.

but what about the mom and pop shops? how would they retain employees? that was a compliant in Las Vegas when the big boxes came around that paid substantially more than the m&p shops.

so pan, what should the federal minimum wage be?

Neither, just a realist. There is quite a bit youre leaving out of this. Sorry if I think youre spinning this to make your political philosphy fall in line

BTW.....you've been working and getting "shit on" by bosses since you were 13. Tell me, what type of business allows a 13 yo to work with them? I'm guessing this is your dad's business and that you are being groomed to take it over. Nothing wrong with that ofcourse, I think its great that busineeses are passed down from generation to generation. Youre lucky to have such a person in your life

Did you read what I wrote or just see what you wanted?

What's wrong with opening up the chances again. Promote training, give incentives to move forward and reward those companies that help move people through the socio-economic classes.

You do this and you have companies that actually practice it and maybe there won't be a need for minimum wage.... But I seriously doubt the CEO wants to only make in 1 month what a worker makes in a day, he'd rather keep the system the way it is where soon he'll be making more in an hour than that worker makes in a year. More in a day than the worker will in ten years and more in a month than that worker will see in a lifetime.

The wealth needs to be spread and people need to be truly rewarded for their labor.

Until the companies will reward the workers...... government will have to make sure it doesn't get worse..... and the workers will someday have to stand and say enough.

The CEO's may have the money but there are 100's of 1000's more workers than CEO's and money cannot buy 24/7 security forever.

But the way to avoid the showdown that will come eventually, is to promote training, promote better employee relations and to promote loyalty as a 2 way street.

If the company is loyal and pays well and the worker doesn't give a true honest day's work then get rid of the worker. But if the worker works his honest day and does the best of his ability then reward him nicely.

2 way street..... now it's a one way and perhaps the workers need to show their muscle.

For those keeping score at home, pan didnt even come close to answering the question.

I had a paper route at 12.5, so I rounded to 13, I did that until I was 15, when I got a job filing (basic secretarial work). I did landscaping, Radioshack, Sears, cell phones, etc. through HS and college, now I'm here. I've never worked for my parents.

I guess you must find it hard to find any winnable counterpoint to what I have said so you have to try to attack. :eek:

You and Stevo obviously missed where I stated:

But if the government must be brought into the mix, and refuses to do what is truly best for the nation, promote internships and companies training and working with employees to better themselves.... then we need to put caps on what a person at the top earns.

If we have a minimum wage we may as well implement a maximum wage and take as taxes anything over that wage.

The biggest reason tax revenue will keep decreasing is because of stagnant wages and good paying jobs being exported or cut.

The whole point to my telling my parents story, was to show that there are ways to advance the workforce, promote growth and thus tax revenue. (I guess some where too ignorant and wanting to attack more than see what was said).

You promote internships, training and developing a workforce that increases their own potential, the wages will go up through natural progression, thus tax revenue goes up, fewer people need government programs and the system builds up and progresses.

As opposed to now, where you do not train the workforce, nor do you show them respect, treat them like they are a dime a dozen and then ship jobs overseas, the results are horrendous.

You decrease tax revenue, you have more people turning to government programs and you have an educational system that cannot train or build the needed workforce. In this model, and this is the model we have now, the workforce becomes disenchanted, the government is relied upon more, tax revenue decreases because of wages, thus programs to advance decrease and it is a spiral downward, to a point where everyone from the worker, to the CEO to the government go broke.

Pan, youre dancing around the issue. This whole thread you've been all about promoting a "living wage". The ideas that you have proposed in response to actually answering the question are ideas that have been more or less in place in Western Europe. And in case you've missed it, their economies are daoing pretty shitty. Also, remember the riots by French young people who went into a fit of rage when the idea of eliminating the immunity of firing an employee within the first two ywars of employment was brought up??

Now, those ideas have been proven ineffective on a much smaller scale and would be even worse if introduced in a nation of 300 million.

Now, for the third time, short of any of these measures being enacted, what should the federal mininum wage be? I'll hang up and listen

Alright...who gave NCB's avatar a gun?

I think wages should be set based on the market, rather than by enforcing a minimum (or maximum) wage. Salary is roughly established by what the required skills are for the job, what society says a job is worth, and by what businesses are willing to pay.

So, if the mandated minimum wage is $10.00/hr, then what about those who currently make $10/hr because they have a job that was judged as worth more? Do they get an equivalent percentage boost in their pay? If everyone gets a boost in pay, then what does boosting minimum wage accomplish other than add to inflation? What about businesses that are just barely profitable? Do they go out of business because they can't afford to pay more? Do they lay off people and make those that are left work harder to pick up the slack?