Nimetic

This makes sense to me.

The "market" as I understand it, doesn't care about anything except profit. Or perhaps (IMHO) the perception of profitability is more important.

So I have no problem with other standards being applied through regulation. I'm thinking of polution laws, of minimum safety standards, of holidays (hours/conditions) and finally - minimum wages.

Maybe this is idealist bullshit. I'm living in a comfortable society. Maybe my values would be different if I lived in a slum and I had 5 kids to feed.

But, given a choice - I'd rather that we extended the work standards of developing countries (gently) rather than compete in a race to lower rates. If lowering standards is the only way to compete (and I'll accept some changes) then I'd be inclined to favour much more protectionist measures.

I'll put it another way, my support for free trade is linked somewhat to my support for reasonble labour conditions globally. If country X treats their civilians like battery hens, then I think we should limit trade with them.

Cynthetiq

I have had my run ins with bad luck and had my setbacks, I have lost my job several times and had to bounce back.

But again, you state "But not everyone has the drive you do, so we should punish people for just being happy to have a job where they can afford to live decently?" does that not imply then you wish for someone to have the same level as for someone else who worked hard for it? In the logic I follow from your writing it does.

As a manager of many people at one time, I had to motivate the over achiever along with the slacker. I tell you it was not fair to the achiever that the same merit increases had to be doled out to the slacker as the achiever. What would ever motivate someone then? Why should someone strive when to not strive they still get the same raise? Again, capitalism is not fair, as is life. We do not get to pick and choose what family we are born, we do not get to pick what country we are born. It is unfortunate, but that is a fact.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

host

Half the population (graph displayed at the link below....) has an IQ of 100 or less. All of us know both curious and incurious individuals; driven folks, ambitious folks, and lazy folks. All of these factors influence success, even if they are not predictive....
In another thread, roachboy briefly mentioned that business owners must pay enough compensation to those who they employ to enable them to have enough wealth to successfully reproduce and feed and nurture a new generation to regenerate the labor pool......that seems obvious.....but it is not recognized universally.

Even slaveowners provided that much.....food, clothing, shelter, medical care, to insure that their "asset" could continue to produce and reproduce to replace itself....

Ford paid his workers $5 per day before 1915. He reasoned that his workforce would be more committed if they could afford to buy the product that they were building.....that wage also created a new consumer class, and spurred other employers to match that wage.....raising the number of other Americans who could afford to buy a model T Ford.

Immediately after WWII, the freight logistics and the large number of ships existed to move numerous U.S. factories to other countries where labor costs would have been much lower. That did not happen. I can't believe that no one thought to do it.....it was probably due more to moral and ethical influences.....and because factory owners just would not "dare" to do that to veterans returning for war duty who were looking for decent paying jobs.

Women who had toiled on war material assembly lines were laid off without anyone batting an eye.....but male American workers were still regarded highly enough and treated with enough respect to be offered jobs at pay levels that were much higher than employers could have gotten away with paying if they had relocated their factories to, say....allied European port cities. It just was not done, and it turned out to be smarter not to....and better for busines.....because it created a strong middle class, and a boom in the domestic economy.

The unwinding of that momentum is happening in the U.S. now. Earlier, I cited figures from a FED web page that showed wealth distribution to half of the U.S. population was just 2-1/2 percent of total wealth. Any discretionary income controlled by that group will take a big hit from stagnant or declining real estate prices, and higher gasoline prices. How will revenue increase at shops like Wal-Mart and Home Depot?

flstf

host, I agree with much of your analysis and especially the post WWII situation. I was a child in the '50s living in a middle class neighborhood and most families had multiple children and made out very well on one income and most had blue collar jobs. Many if not most of these jobs had good pensions, benefits, and medical insurance included.

In Halberstams's book "The Fifties" he details the growth of many industries during this time which would not have been possible if workers couldn't afford new homes, appliances, TVs, cars, etc... It seems that having a well paid middle class actually enables the rich to get richer and creates many opportunities for new businesses.

I'm afraid there is little loyalty among companies and workers nowadays and our retirement and medical benefits are slowly being eliminated from company offerings. I don't think my WWII generation father even heard the term "downsizing". Of course the world has caught up somewhat, and back then most of the stuff coming out of Japan, etc.. was considered inferior and cheap.

magictoy

I think that a few statements, plus a not insignificant amount of time spent looking through archives, may have backed up my point. (Which, in case anyone has forgotten, is that people who work hard almost never stay in minimum wage jobs).

Judging by what you say about your present income, it would seem to have been a good deal. If I remember correctly, you own your house and car. Your statements have also led me to believe that your educational loans are paid off. According to your profile, you're 25. Not bad, I'd say. If your response is, "I worked my ass off," my answer would be, "That's the idea." If you are saying minimum wage should be higher so you would be in your current financial state of affairs BEFORE age 25, I'd say you were being a bit greedy.

However, your espousal of a minimum wage hike (and your interest in my personal life) encouraged me to learn how to search the archive, with the following results.

1. Although you describe yourself as a "low-income" teenager, you attended martial arts school(s) from age 4 to sometime past age 16. Martial arts are not cheap, and those payments didn't go into your college fund. You also weren't earning income while you were taking those classes.

I conclude that you made a conscious choice to study martial arts, even if it meant you had to borrow a "crapload" of money later. I don't fault that decision, but I don't accept "whining" (your word) about your lack of funds at the time, either.

"A few years back." You were 24 when you wrote that. Most people use the term "a few" to mean 3 or more. So if you were age 21 at that writing, which just about HAS to be when you were in college, the state of your finances, once again, was not as dire as it could have been.

Maybe, but if someone with a "severe heart condition" could be a 5th degree black belt, AND drive race cars, AND own his house and car, AND have his education paid for (you said you DID, past tense, have student loans) by age 25, well, this is a great country and we shouldn't fool around with it.

I don't understand this statement. What I was referring to is the GI bill, by which so many military veterans have obtained higher education.

The subject is minimum wage, not crappy jobs. I believe that anyone who has spent 5 or so years working at minimum wage isn't trying hard enough to improve their status.

Since you're so interested, I'll give you the full story. At the time I wrote that I was "with my parents," I was. In 2003, my sister and I were moving them to a house near us, because they were no longer able to manage all of their affairs. My mother had fallen for the workman appearing at the door to "do some repair work he'd noticed they needed." My parents fell for that--twice.

We got them moved near us. Two months ago, my mother died, and since she was the one who kept an eye on my father, who has Alzheimer's, I, my sister, her two kids, and my two kids are supervising my father in shifts.

Are there any more questions about me or my parents?

Willravel

Born 8/3/83, which makes me 22 years old, 23 in August. I'm not fighting for myself, I'm fighting for others. I have a bit of a savior complex, which has a lot to do with my political beliefs. I tend to want to save people (sometimes to a fault). I do own my house and car, though I was given a good deal on the house by a family member.
My gradparents payed for my martial arts until I was 14, when I got my first job doing secretarial work for a neighbor who owned his own company. I made minimum wage then, too. No, martial arts were not cheap, that is until I left the ATA for more direct training. I paid for a lot of my own stuff with the money I earned. I payed for my martial arts, clothes, etc.
I expected to be paid on par with other people who did the same amount of work that I did, but were older. If I had the secretarial job today that I had then, I would be making at least $15 per hour. I made something like $5 per hour then. Whining had a lot to do with fairness, and less to do with selfishness. My employer easily had the means to pay fair wages.
I was 20 when I was allowed to race my friends car at LS. I did not own the car, I did not pay to have to car repaired or modified. I did share the cost of fuel and tires, but aside form that it was only an investment of time. My buddy who was and still is very well off had no problem with a friend racing his cheapest car. I was practicaly wetting myself at the prospet of racing at Laguna Seca at all. He was excited to have a 'team'.
I did the martial arts and racing against the direction of my cardiologist, but with the reccomendation of my sports doctor. I could and still cannot compete in martial arts, and I could not drive a really fast car (the 928 was practically stock) because of the force it put on my cardiovascular system. According to my condition, I cannot do competitive sports and I cannot lift heavy weights. A coarctation of the aorta repair means that my descending aorta is a grafted-on piece of dachron tube. This means that 1) the aorta cannot grow and 2) it has a limit of strength. I cannot allow my blood pressure to go above a certian point or my heath or even my life can be in serious danger. I know my limits, and I respect them. I hope that explaination was sufficient.
I disagree. Edit: 'Anyone' who has spend 5 years working minimum wage ins't trying hard enough? One word pops into my mind: empathy. Are you really able to put yourself in the shoes of these people and imagine the full gravity of their situation? What if you are the daughter of illegal immigrints (born here, and thus a citizen), who had to essentially raise your little brother who has down syndrome while both of your parents worked so that you could have a roof over your head and food on your table. It certianally builds character, but missing school puts you at a serious disadvantage in the job market when you are eventually asked to take a job. You start working at a run down supermarket because the owner is a friend of the family (you would not be able to get work otherwise), and you start orking 30 hours a week at $5/hr. Your refrences don't speak english, you have very little english skills at all, no education, no job skills beyond taking care of a sick little boy (which cannot be backed up by refrences). You're f**ked if you want a job that pays more than $5/hr. You continue to work at the run down supermarket hoping for a raise, but none will even come because the place only does enough business to break even.

Perhapse this hypothetical character should have been born in a better situation, and thus the situation she is in is her fault.
My questions were mearly intended to find out what background you have in the subject at hand.

While I do recognise that some of those making minimum wages simply don't care and are lazy, not all of them fall in to this catagory. I believe that some people do wish to better themselves, but are stuck for whatever reason, and despite admirable efforts cannot become unstuck mearly through perserverience or tenacity. The reason I believe this is I know people in that situation. There are valid reasons, beyond not trying hard enough, to explain why some people are forced to hold minimum wage jobs.

filtherton

Wait, i thought this thread was about the minimum wage, not willravel's posting history. I also thought your original point was that raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.

pan6467

Amen Brother!!

I don't understand how tearing down someone and trying to argue their past posts and how they have personally done ties into a debate about minimum wage either.

From what I see in Magictoy's post he tries to confuse the argument and change the subject by attacking Will.

How does this help Magictoy's side of the debate? What it shows me is he had nothing rational to add so he attacked someone personally through their posts.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Ah yes, the "minimum wage" for the worker must be kept down, yet the CEO NEEDS to make more in one hour than those workers in a year do.

Explain why.

Explain why the average CEO needs to make $11 MILLION dollars and more in one day than the average US worker who makes $42,000 a year?

Explain to me why you believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week should not make enough to buy food, pay their mortgage, afford their kids and be able to save a little while being able to afford a decent lifestyle.

I know people who work 40 hours a week and have to choose between buying gas to get to work or food for their kids..... Is that what America is about?

What happened to an honest day's wage for an honest day's work?

You pay people shit you get shit back in quality.

If you paid the honest hard worker more and gave him respect, perhaps you would find that you would have less turnover, more and higher quality production and more loyal customers.

If companies paid decent wages minimum wage wouldn't be an issue would it? Oh yeah, it's a bargaining chip for the non existent and pretty much decimated unions, that's right. Or no it means prices go up because those people who pay the minimum wage (or wages that are unliveable) want to punish everyone for the raise they must give, God forbid the bosses have to take a pay cut.

You have Congress giving themselves raises (oh yeah.... they vote the raises for the next Congress.... oops sorry just what 75+% get re-elected, so they'll benefit).... and with their benefits they don't truly ever have to touch their pay.

You claim you pay too much in taxes taking care of the "poor people".... hmmmm..... well maybe if you demanded companies paid better, liveable wages so that the people who DID work could afford to live, afford medical afford food afford to send their kids to college and be able to feel like they are someone because they have a little bit of money....... GUESS WHAT? Your fucking taxes would probably start going for better use, because the social part of the taxes wouldn't be such a strain.... more people making better wages, needing less government help = fewer social taxes needed....

What is so impossible to see about that?

But by all means keep arguing CEO's need to make more in 1 day than the average worker does in a year.

By all means keep picking and choosing which 40 hour a week jobs are meaningless and those who work them don't deserve a liveable wage.

Some people all they desire in life is enough to live a decent life ....... WTF is wrong with that? We need people who are willing to work jobs "of menial labor" and if they are working and trying to live a respectable life then who is anyone to say they do not deserve a decent wage?

Maybe if we paid better wages we wouldn't have to have the mothers work. Maybe all those people who one on hand are crying about the family not being close yet refuse to allow minimum wage to go up, would realize if you paid more and the family could live on one wage earner.... maybe we'd have closer families and less divorces.

Of course none of this makes sense to any of you who oppose any type of minimum wage?








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AS YOU SEE IT IS NOT JUST BUSH AND THE GOP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THIS. (sorry for the cap sentence but I do not want anyone using partisanship as their excuse.....)

==========================================================

Links: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20060621

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20060627

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20060726

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ASU2003

I'm doing some actual research into the issues I'm voting for (Yes, it's a shock that someone actually looks at the facts before they go to vote)
http://raisethewage.org/pdf/MinimumW...dment_Full.pdf

And issue 2 in Ohio is the minimum wage amendment.
http://raisethewage.org/

It would raise the state wage from $5.15 to $6.85. And each year it would increase by the amount of inflation for the previous year.

It looks like it will pass, just because the large amount of lower income Ohioans that would get a large raise. I'm surprised there hasn't been a campaign from Wal-Mart and the fast food places against this. I'm sure if they said they would cut their workforce by 15% if this passes, it wouldn't be so guaranteed to pass. Even though it might not be in my best interests (it doesn’t affect me directly) , may cause further unemployment (or just be harder to find a job), and cause some small businesses to fail or move out of the state. I still tend to side in favor of this. Hopefully my taxes will go down as these people will now be able to get off Medicaid since they would be making over the poverty line. And they would be paying more in taxes. The big stores might raise prices though, however they have increased prices many times over the past 10 years and not really increased the hourly wage. The only other problem is that while it might bridge the gap between me and the minimum wage earner, it still doesn't address the bigger issue of wage disparity.

Plus I like the message that it sends to congress, that they are supposed to represent the people, not their agenda. Even if a representative is against the minimum wage hike, if 80 or 90% of the people in your district want it, the representative should vote for it.

We’ll see what happens…

Bill O'Rights

Sounds admirable.

However...unless that inflatiary increase is applied across the board, within 20 years the minimum wage will have overrun everyone elses wages, and we will all be earning minimum wage. Or...we'll all be out of jobs and looking to immigrate to China.

Consider...few pay increases keep pace with inflation. The industry standard for wage increases was 3% last year. What was the rate of inflation? I dunno, I'm to lazy to look it up, but it was greater than 3%. See where this goes?

So...regardless...any increase in the minimum wage will reduce the value of your current wages...whatever that may be.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

host

I've included the first year....1913.... that the US gov. meausred CPI. I'm not sure that it offers a meaningful year to year comparison, because the benchmarks of measurement have been changed over time....an example is that the CPI housing cost measure is tied to the cost of renting....while the US is a nation of about 68 percent homeowning households....rent costs went down during the recent housing price bubble, as less renters pursued more housing units......

I've included CPI for years that end in "6", and high and low years. While there were several periods in CPI history when prices actually decresed, this has not happened since 1955.....
The article above makes a case, IMO, for government intervention in the setting of a wage floor....especially the last paragraph. Labor lost contol of "ownership" of the means of production, beginning in the latter part of the 1700's. It seems to me that workers can, and have.....used the power of government, by the influence of their sheer numbers, to take back some of the power of ownership that they once enjoyed.....when they controlled the means of production, and labor was not just another "input" in the production process, a generic commodity.

pan6467

I just want to know why it is so wrong to expect that men and women who work 40 hours a week make liveable wages and not have to go into debt, not have to have their intelligence or desires questioned.

If a person works 40 hours a week, they should be entitled to, have a right to and be able to make enough to live comfortably on and not have ANYONE question their integrity.

As for raising minimum wage.... here's a novel idea..... instead make it so that every time a CEO takes a raise (including ALL forms of compensation, stock options, bonuses, etc.), 110% is added to the worker.

So if a CEO makes a million one year and decides he needs a 100% raise and pays himself 2 million the next, the company's workers get 110% raise.

If there is a company that has say 1,000 employees and the CEO takes a $1 million raise and bonus and perks..... that those 1,000 workers each could have had a $10,000 a year raise? Imagine the dedication, loyalty and incentive you would create in your workforce if you said.... "I'll not take a raise this year, (or I'll drop my $11 mill salary to $10 Mill), and give it to the workers that produce the product the raise instead.

Let's see a CEO say that instead of why if minimum wage goes up, the prices of goods go up and he still takes a huge ass raise.

PS by giving the workers that raise also, increases the tax base thus takes some of the burden of the CEO.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

stevo

What do you think a CEO does, Pan? Do you think CEO's do anything that add value to a company? Do you think CEO's are paid what they are only because "they can get away with it?" Is it ever justifiable that a CEO makes a seven-figure salary?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

NCB

I dont need the govt to give me a raise. Anybody who does need them to doesnt even remotely deserve it.

__________________

jorgelito

I think Ben & Jerry's tried this, tying the executive salaries to the lowest paid employee. It didn't work, they eventually had to hire a real CEO at market prices to run their business effectively.

There are successful companies that are very profitable and pay their workers more than minimum wage, on their own initiative without government interference.

EX: Starbucks

From my own personal experience, I've always started off at minimum wage and then rapidly received pay raises and promotions due to my hard work ethic and skills. If anything, I would appreciate it if the government would tax me less.

ASU2003

Yeah, I'm not too big of a fan of the automatic adjustments to the CPI either. I guess social security does the same thing. But all that means is if people have more money, and are in the market for the same produces, the prices will go up. And for workers who are making $7/hour, it wouldn't be very good for them, because now they aren't making that much more than the minimum wage. I wonder what would happen if the CPI just shot up 100 or 200% because the value of the dollar plunges, what would happen?

There are quite a few jobs that can't go overseas, but that just means that the only jobs that will be left are at the big box stores, fast food, car sales, realtors, military, police, fire, government, medical, truck drivers, farmers, strippers...
There will still be enough jobs for a large percentage of the population.


Whole foods and a bunch of European companies have rules that the CEO can't make more than 14 or 17 times what the lowest paid employee gets.

Cynthetiq

as "grass roots" as Ben & Jerry's small company standing seems to be...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

jorgelito

Ooh, thanks Cyn, do you have a link to the rest of the story? I wonder what the deal was; did their ideas really not pan out or what? It was a nice concept in theory I suppose... I'm also curious about the Whole Foods model. If I remember correctly, I don;t think they give their employees any health benefits (or maybe it was Trader Joe's).

Yep, I think that was the Ben & Jerry's model too (at least it sounds about right).

smooth

"failed attempt" doesn't have anything to do with their business model.
it's referring to the fact that the two owners tried to take sole ownership back after their company was open to "public" ownership...which means large conglomerates purchased enough stocks that they couldn't retain control over their own company.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

host

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?

jorgelito

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

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

NCB

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

__________________

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

NCB

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

__________________

Willravel

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.

pan6467

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)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

NCB

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

__________________

pan6467

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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

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.

ratbastid

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.

stevo

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?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

NCB

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

__________________

stevo

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?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

stevo

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.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

pan6467

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

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

stevo

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?"

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Willravel

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).