So What Do You Think Is A Fair And Decent Wage?...

[BDBoop]

.

Okay, I tried.

Full disclosure, I wasn't expecting anything, but I tried.

Bottom line: Raise the minimum wage to whatever you want. Tomorrow. I'll watch.

.

I can't decide if you are the Cowardly Lion or the Tin Man.

Either way, you are nothing but hot air.

Mac likes to pretend he is the MAN when it comes to ..........whatever financial topic is being discussed.

But he doesn't take questions well. Cause he's the MAN. And if you don't agree with him, he don't argue his points. He just declares that I am crazy and he is done and we should just do what ever we want. And he will watch.

Sometimes it is weird.

Sounds it. But then, there is a fair amount of "undiagnosed, untreated" on the interwebz.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Of course, the first thing the companies will have to do is downsize their minimum wage workforce, cut the hours of many others, and heap more responsibilities on those who remain. It should be interesting to see how much work a low-skilled minimum wage worker can stand. Kinda like a science experiment, cool.

Then, of course, those who have lost their jobs and those who had their hours cut and those who didn't get the jobs because the employers aren't hiring will end up on welfare.

I guess then the government can step in again and force companies to hire minimum wage workers whether they need them or not. Because that's the job of government: Step in and force.

More and more and more power to Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning, because they love us and they care.

Great stuff, let's do it, this should be fun.

.

OK. One by one. First, you are projecting. If a company has 50 minimum wage workers and they have a pay increase of 3 dollar an hour. Lets see, thats 150 dollars times 8 hours equals 1200 dollars a day times 365 equals 438,000 dollars a year. ( I know its on the high side because they won't work 365 days. But it balances out the FICA increase.)

So the company has had an increase in wages for minimum wage workers of 438,000 dollars. Now how to pay for that you might ask.

Well the executive payroll totals 3.5 million dollars for lets say 10 people.

So for a reduction in executive payroll of about 12%, this hypothetical company can give 50 of it's lowest paid workers a nice increase and STILL be paying their executives a really NICE salary.

And the government didn't have anything to do with it. Just the good will of the companies executives who realized they were way overpaid and that their minimum wage workers were worth more money.

Did I address the first point or was that to hysterical for you?

Thank you Zeke, while Betty continues to avoid you step up. Not hysterical at all.

Your premise appears to be that a company is going to simply reduce its executives pay to pay for the increase of its minimum wage workers. That the executives are going to practice goodwill so that other people can have more.

That's not going to happen, for any number of reasons. Any company will tell you that they are paying market rate for their executives and cannot just arbitrarily cut the pay of those people because it would risk losing those executives in the free market. Now, my guess is that this would anger you because you feel these people are paid too much, and that may be true, but it's simply not going to happen.

What will happen is that the company will make cuts at street level first. These people are far more easy to replace than executives, and if they don't like it, they are free to find employment elsewhere. This is just fundamental business economics at its most basic level. So this notion that execs will just take a pay cut to pay for minimum wage people is just not gonna happen.

Unless we do as I said - some kind of government mandate about pay.

So, I hope that answers your question. I'm not making value judgments on how much execs make, I'm just pointing out reality.

So, a question for you: Should the government mandate how much those execs can make? That would take their money and give it to the minimum wage workers with no cost increase to the company, as you said.

.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hey Oddalloop. Don't you bring ANYTHING to the table that is worth reading? I mean ANYTHING that makes a little sense?

I bring the fact that you have a moral compass that assures you taking from someone who has an abundance to support you is justified.

 

[zeke]

Just curious. I'm really interested in hearing what you all consider a fair & decent Wage. I'd like to get some straight-forward answers without the Political debates and diatribes. I'm only interested in the numbers. Just list the numbers you think an average American should be able to survive on. I think it's a very interesting and important question. It should be fascinating in terms of numbers, seeing what Americans think an average American can or should be able to survive on. Thanks all for your participation.

It is the wrong question to ask.

More appropriate question would be what value does my labor bring to the worker/employer relationship.

That is the bottom floor of all and any discussion regarding wages. Fair is far to subjective an issue. I can bring zero value to an employer and think that for me, a fair wage is 25 dollars an hour.

You cannot disassociate the value returned with the value paid. That is the fallacy of the 'living wage' argument.

This is true. Sometimes I hire minimum wage workers for clean up when doing a roof. But I end up paying them more USUALLY. You know why? Just what you said. Value.

When a roof job is going on, all the neighbors in that area are watching. And if they need a roof, they are watching closely. And if that minimum wage clean up guy is doing a real good job keeping the mess cleaned up, that's a good thing.

You know why? The neighbors love it when the job is done right. And cleanly. And the neighbors will come up and either ask for a business card and an estimate or they say how good the job looks.

But the interest in a roof is not based on what I pay the guys shingling. It's based on the lowest paid worker I have. The ground clean up guy. Now that is adding value and is worth more than minimum wage and I pay more than minimum wage. Usually.

Ain't that weird?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Depends on the job, and not what the person seeking job thinks they are worth.

 

[zeke]

.

Of course, the first thing the companies will have to do is downsize their minimum wage workforce, cut the hours of many others, and heap more responsibilities on those who remain. It should be interesting to see how much work a low-skilled minimum wage worker can stand. Kinda like a science experiment, cool.

Then, of course, those who have lost their jobs and those who had their hours cut and those who didn't get the jobs because the employers aren't hiring will end up on welfare.

I guess then the government can step in again and force companies to hire minimum wage workers whether they need them or not. Because that's the job of government: Step in and force.

More and more and more power to Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning, because they love us and they care.

Great stuff, let's do it, this should be fun.

.

OK. One by one. First, you are projecting. If a company has 50 minimum wage workers and they have a pay increase of 3 dollar an hour. Lets see, thats 150 dollars times 8 hours equals 1200 dollars a day times 365 equals 438,000 dollars a year. ( I know its on the high side because they won't work 365 days. But it balances out the FICA increase.)

So the company has had an increase in wages for minimum wage workers of 438,000 dollars. Now how to pay for that you might ask.

Well the executive payroll totals 3.5 million dollars for lets say 10 people.

So for a reduction in executive payroll of about 12%, this hypothetical company can give 50 of it's lowest paid workers a nice increase and STILL be paying their executives a really NICE salary.

And the government didn't have anything to do with it. Just the good will of the companies executives who realized they were way overpaid and that their minimum wage workers were worth more money.

Did I address the first point or was that to hysterical for you?

Thank you Zeke, while Betty continues to avoid you step up. Not hysterical at all.

Your premise appears to be that a company is going to simply reduce its executives pay to pay for the increase of its minimum wage workers. That the executives are going to practice goodwill so that other people can have more.

That's not going to happen, for any number of reasons. Any company will tell you that they are paying market rate for their executives and cannot just arbitrarily cut the pay of those people because it would risk losing those executives in the free market. Now, my guess is that this would anger you because you feel these people are paid too much, and that may be true, but it's simply not going to happen.

What will happen is that the company will make cuts at street level first. These people are far more easy to replace than executives, and if they don't like it, they are free to find employment elsewhere. This is just fundamental business economics at its most basic level. So this notion that execs will just take a pay cut to pay for minimum wage people is just not gonna happen.

Unless we do as I said - some kind of government mandate about pay.

So, I hope that answers your question. I'm not making value judgments on how much execs make, I'm just pointing out reality.

So, a question for you: Should the government mandate how much those execs can make? That would take their money and give it to the minimum wage workers with no cost increase to the company, as you said.

.

Wanted to make sure that you knew I saw and answered your question.

Should the government mandate executive wages you ask? NO.

The workers should form themselves a union and strike for higher wages. It is always interesting to see companies have this huge executive pay roll to make when no workers are on the job doing the companies business. Puts lots of stress on management.

Right now the companies all have it going their way. Lots of workers to choose from. Lots of politicians fighting the fight against raising the minimum wage.etc.

But nothing lasts forever. And one day the value of labor will be better appreciated again.

I hope we get a populist for a Presidential candidate sometime in my lifetime.

Hey and Mac I grew up in an industrial city and the executives made it their business to treat their workers fairly. Look up John Patterson of the NCR Company and see how well they treated their employees at one time. Same for many other manufacturing companies.

Seems like if you run a company that actually makes things, the executives better understand the value of labor. Service industry executives seem to think workers are just low wage replacement parts for their benefit.

And finally the government should increase minimum wage laws to at least 10 bucks an hour.

If company executives don't like that tuff shit. Let em find another job. I mean there are so many out there paying 500k a year or so.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw.

 

[Darkwind]

Just curious. I'm really interested in hearing what you all consider a fair & decent Wage. I'd like to get some straight-forward answers without the Political debates and diatribes. I'm only interested in the numbers. Just list the numbers you think an average American should be able to survive on. I think it's a very interesting and important question. It should be fascinating in terms of numbers, seeing what Americans think an average American can or should be able to survive on. Thanks all for your participation.

It is the wrong question to ask.

More appropriate question would be what value does my labor bring to the worker/employer relationship.

That is the bottom floor of all and any discussion regarding wages. Fair is far to subjective an issue. I can bring zero value to an employer and think that for me, a fair wage is 25 dollars an hour.

You cannot disassociate the value returned with the value paid. That is the fallacy of the 'living wage' argument.

This is true. Sometimes I hire minimum wage workers for clean up when doing a roof. But I end up paying them more USUALLY. You know why? Just what you said. Value.

When a roof job is going on, all the neighbors in that area are watching. And if they need a roof, they are watching closely. And if that minimum wage clean up guy is doing a real good job keeping the mess cleaned up, that's a good thing.

You know why? The neighbors love it when the job is done right. And cleanly. And the neighbors will come up and either ask for a business card and an estimate or they say how good the job looks.

But the interest in a roof is not based on what I pay the guys shingling. It's based on the lowest paid worker I have. The ground clean up guy. Now that is adding value and is worth more than minimum wage and I pay more than minimum wage. Usually.

Ain't that weird?

That is all well and good, but running a business has no attachment to how the neighbors feel, nor does it have any social prerequisites.

A business operates to provide a steady and increasing income to the owner(s) by providing a product or service to consumers who cannot or will not provide that product and/or service for themselves.

To product this produce or provide this product for consumption, the business employes people with skill sets that fit specific Business Intelligent models for each department. An HR skill set for managing the people, a Purchasing/Warehousing skill set for acquiring the raw materials or needed products for resale. An Accounting skill set for managing and maintaining the financial health of the business. A production skill set if the business creates products from raw materials to a finished product. A Customer Relations unit for understanding and interacting with the customer base.

All of these are marketable skill sets that bring with them a value. A janitor does not have the knowledge to handle business investments in equipment needed, financial vehicles to earn and safeguard wealth, nor balance the accounts of the business. Therefore, he is undeserving of the 65 to 70k dollars a year salary. He is responsible for keeping the toilets clean, the trash emptied, and the floors clean, which is deserving of the 8 to 10 dollars an hour he or she earns.

So, a discussion on what is the minimum wage acceptable is not a worthwhile discussion to have because it is devoid of the value that the wage earner brings to the relationship.

If the janitor wishes to make the 70k dollars a year, he or she needs to gain and master the skills that will meet the requirements of the accountant.

If the janitor finds that they cannot live on the wage they earn, they (and only they) are responsible for increasing their value to a prospective employer.

Society has and should not have, anything to do with it.

ETA:

In other words, a person who punches a picture on a register and collects money from the customer is not deserving of 15 dollars an hour wage, no more than the person who slaps a cold circle of animal onto a chain and waits for it to exist the other side, fully cooked, only to have it slapped into a stainless steel container to await another person who squirts the bun, slaps on the meat and wraps it in paper. Monkeys can be trained to do that job.

 

[zeke]

The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw.

That is profound. What's it mean? Like I said. Do you add ANYTHING?

 

[Mac1958]

Wanted to make sure that you knew I saw and answered your question.

Should the government mandate executive wages you ask? NO.

The workers should form themselves a union and strike for higher wages. It is always interesting to see companies have this huge executive pay roll to make when no workers are on the job doing the companies business. Puts lots of stress on management.

Right now the companies all have it going their way. Lots of workers to choose from. Lots of politicians fighting the fight against raising the minimum wage.etc.

But nothing lasts forever. And one day the value of labor will be better appreciated again.

I hope we get a populist for a Presidential candidate sometime in my lifetime.

Hey and Mac I grew up in an industrial city and the executives made it their business to treat their workers fairly. Look up John Patterson of the NCR Company and see how well they treated their employees at one time. Same for many other manufacturing companies.

Seems like if you run a company that actually makes things, the executives better understand the value of labor. Service industry executives seem to think workers are just low wage replacement parts for their benefit.

And finally the government should increase minimum wage laws to at least 10 bucks an hour.

If company executives don't like that tuff shit. Let em find another job. I mean there are so many out there paying 500k a year or so.

Not much there that I disagree with, although after looking at posts written while I was writing I wish you and Betty didn't have to make things personal. Oh well, such is life at USMB, I'm used to it.

First, after looking (another post) at the way you run your business, you're absolutely right in your approach - business ownership is better off when it rewards good work - not only does it improve the quality of its products/services, it helps that business attract & retain better people in a free market. But that's up to that business. If it doesn't do smart things it will fail. That's how it works.

If minimum wage workers organize and unionize, then yes, I don't see how you won't see wage compression with a higher low end and a lower high end. Would there be "brain drain" at the top? Probably, but I'm not convinced that its effects would be significant. I could be wrong, but I'm not convinced. That will be the argument, though.

What does concern me is the nature of union agreements. Look at your business - if your employees force an agreement that increases their pay by 50%, requires health coverage and creates a pension fund (SEP, whatever) to which you must contribute, how does that effect your business? I can think of a few negative consequences.

If collective bargaining resulted in higher pay but not many of the associated benefits, I wouldn't quibble. But I don't see anything stopping overreach.

.

 

[zeke]

It is the wrong question to ask.

More appropriate question would be what value does my labor bring to the worker/employer relationship.

That is the bottom floor of all and any discussion regarding wages. Fair is far to subjective an issue. I can bring zero value to an employer and think that for me, a fair wage is 25 dollars an hour.

You cannot disassociate the value returned with the value paid. That is the fallacy of the 'living wage' argument.

This is true. Sometimes I hire minimum wage workers for clean up when doing a roof. But I end up paying them more USUALLY. You know why? Just what you said. Value.

When a roof job is going on, all the neighbors in that area are watching. And if they need a roof, they are watching closely. And if that minimum wage clean up guy is doing a real good job keeping the mess cleaned up, that's a good thing.

You know why? The neighbors love it when the job is done right. And cleanly. And the neighbors will come up and either ask for a business card and an estimate or they say how good the job looks.

But the interest in a roof is not based on what I pay the guys shingling. It's based on the lowest paid worker I have. The ground clean up guy. Now that is adding value and is worth more than minimum wage and I pay more than minimum wage. Usually.

Ain't that weird?

That is all well and good, but running a business has no attachment to how the neighbors feel, nor does it have any social prerequisites.

A business operates to provide a steady and increasing income to the owner(s) by providing a product or service to consumers who cannot or will not provide that product and/or service for themselves.

To product this produce or provide this product for consumption, the business employes people with skill sets that fit specific Business Intelligent models for each department. An HR skill set for managing the people, a Purchasing/Warehousing skill set for acquiring the raw materials or needed products for resale. An Accounting skill set for managing and maintaining the financial health of the business. A production skill set if the business creates products from raw materials to a finished product. A Customer Relations unit for understanding and interacting with the customer base.

All of these are marketable skill sets that bring with them a value. A janitor does not have the knowledge to handle business investments in equipment needed, financial vehicles to earn and safeguard wealth, nor balance the accounts of the business. Therefore, he is undeserving of the 65 to 70k dollars a year salary. He is responsible for keeping the toilets clean, the trash emptied, and the floors clean, which is deserving of the 8 to 10 dollars an hour he or she earns.

So, a discussion on what is the minimum wage acceptable is not a worthwhile discussion to have because it is devoid of the value that the wage earner brings to the relationship.

If the janitor wishes to make the 70k dollars a year, he or she needs to gain and master the skills that will meet the requirements of the accountant.

If the janitor finds that they cannot live on the wage they earn, they (and only they) are responsible for increasing their value to a prospective employer.

Society has and should not have, anything to do with it.

Nah. You must be right. How could a business doing residential roofing have anything to do with putting roofs on the houses of a neighborhood? And having the neighborhood home owners asking for bids and offering compliments.Because of a low wage workers efforts.

No value there. Cause I don't employ janitors.

Yea I see what you mean.

 

[eagle1462010]

There will NEVER be a MINIMUM WAGE HIGH ENOUGH if WE CONTINUE DESTROYING THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR................................

The end game, is our economic destruction, and NO AMOUNT of wage increases will fix it...................

The minimum wage debate ignores this question regularly. The answer to arbitrarily raise it to a level as seen fit by the left doesn't equate the consequences in a Global Market or Trade Deficits that continue to increase.

Raising it via the CPI is still the only answer. With one exception, going back to the original means of calculating the CPI. Over the decades the Gov't has purposely changed the way it calculates the CPI to make it smaller by Cooking the Books on what it uses for Inflation. In order to cut their costs, and paint a better picture for the public by saying ALL IS WELL.................

Bottom line..........If we destroy our currency, we are done.

 

[eagle1462010]

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2013

From 1970 until 2013 the Cumulative rate of inflation: 503.5%

Based on the value of the dollar.....................

Does anybody wonder our Standard of Living keeps going down...............Did something happen around that time that changed it..........................

 

[Darkwind]

This is true. Sometimes I hire minimum wage workers for clean up when doing a roof. But I end up paying them more USUALLY. You know why? Just what you said. Value.

When a roof job is going on, all the neighbors in that area are watching. And if they need a roof, they are watching closely. And if that minimum wage clean up guy is doing a real good job keeping the mess cleaned up, that's a good thing.

You know why? The neighbors love it when the job is done right. And cleanly. And the neighbors will come up and either ask for a business card and an estimate or they say how good the job looks.

But the interest in a roof is not based on what I pay the guys shingling. It's based on the lowest paid worker I have. The ground clean up guy. Now that is adding value and is worth more than minimum wage and I pay more than minimum wage. Usually.

Ain't that weird?

That is all well and good, but running a business has no attachment to how the neighbors feel, nor does it have any social prerequisites.

A business operates to provide a steady and increasing income to the owner(s) by providing a product or service to consumers who cannot or will not provide that product and/or service for themselves.

To product this produce or provide this product for consumption, the business employes people with skill sets that fit specific Business Intelligent models for each department. An HR skill set for managing the people, a Purchasing/Warehousing skill set for acquiring the raw materials or needed products for resale. An Accounting skill set for managing and maintaining the financial health of the business. A production skill set if the business creates products from raw materials to a finished product. A Customer Relations unit for understanding and interacting with the customer base.

All of these are marketable skill sets that bring with them a value. A janitor does not have the knowledge to handle business investments in equipment needed, financial vehicles to earn and safeguard wealth, nor balance the accounts of the business. Therefore, he is undeserving of the 65 to 70k dollars a year salary. He is responsible for keeping the toilets clean, the trash emptied, and the floors clean, which is deserving of the 8 to 10 dollars an hour he or she earns.

So, a discussion on what is the minimum wage acceptable is not a worthwhile discussion to have because it is devoid of the value that the wage earner brings to the relationship.

If the janitor wishes to make the 70k dollars a year, he or she needs to gain and master the skills that will meet the requirements of the accountant.

If the janitor finds that they cannot live on the wage they earn, they (and only they) are responsible for increasing their value to a prospective employer.

Society has and should not have, anything to do with it.

Nah. You must be right. How could a business doing residential roofing have anything to do with putting roofs on the houses of a neighborhood? And having the neighborhood home owners asking for bids and offering compliments.Because of a low wage workers efforts.

No value there. Cause I don't employ janitors.

Yea I see what you mean.

You're welcome.

 

[Darkwind]

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2013

From 1970 until 2013 the Cumulative rate of inflation: 503.5%

Based on the value of the dollar.....................

Does anybody wonder our Standard of Living keeps going down...............Did something happen around that time that changed it..........................

Well, that (gold standard) and the full speed ahead operation of hundreds of these:

 

[Mac1958]

Bottom line..........If we destroy our currency, we are done.

Yeah, well, this is a whole OTHER fucking issue.

Wage compression and monetary valuation are (for the most part) mutually exclusive, or at least they CAN be, fortunately. But yeah, nothing done regarding wages will help in the long run as long as we have our head up our ass regarding the dollar...

.

 

[Katzndogz]

A fair and decent wage would be determined by what type of job you have the skills needed to that job and of course how well you do the job it would vary from profession to profession and person to person.

That means the employer chooses how much you are paid. You could be an excellent worker and work 8 hours a day at a concreting job but be paid less than $5 an hour because the employer thinks that is all you are worth, when the employee should be paid at least five times as much.

No. The employer think that JOB is only worth $5.00 an hour. No one is paid what they are worth, they are paid what the task is worth. The labor of human beings has no intrinsic value. None. The entire value is what the task is worth.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bottom line..........If we destroy our currency, we are done.

Yeah, well, this is a whole OTHER fucking issue.

Wage compression and monetary valuation are (for the most part) mutually exclusive, or at least they CAN be, fortunately. But yeah, nothing done regarding wages will help in the long run as long as we have our head up our ass regarding the dollar...

.

I agree on your second stated point, but not of the first. I do not believe this is an other issue..........As the value of the dollar declines, our buying power decreases, which is a Direct impact on the ability to survive in these times...................

Which is exactly why I posted this in the thread.................As our buying power goes down, the standard of living goes down as well. A Strong Dollar is necessary for a Good Economy, and we have been losing the dollar's value at a much greater rate than how they calculate inflation.

 

[Katzndogz]

OK. One by one. First, you are projecting. If a company has 50 minimum wage workers and they have a pay increase of 3 dollar an hour. Lets see, thats 150 dollars times 8 hours equals 1200 dollars a day times 365 equals 438,000 dollars a year. ( I know its on the high side because they won't work 365 days. But it balances out the FICA increase.)

So the company has had an increase in wages for minimum wage workers of 438,000 dollars. Now how to pay for that you might ask.

Well the executive payroll totals 3.5 million dollars for lets say 10 people.

So for a reduction in executive payroll of about 12%, this hypothetical company can give 50 of it's lowest paid workers a nice increase and STILL be paying their executives a really NICE salary.

And the government didn't have anything to do with it. Just the good will of the companies executives who realized they were way overpaid and that their minimum wage workers were worth more money.

Did I address the first point or was that to hysterical for you?

Thank you Zeke, while Betty continues to avoid you step up. Not hysterical at all.

Your premise appears to be that a company is going to simply reduce its executives pay to pay for the increase of its minimum wage workers. That the executives are going to practice goodwill so that other people can have more.

That's not going to happen, for any number of reasons. Any company will tell you that they are paying market rate for their executives and cannot just arbitrarily cut the pay of those people because it would risk losing those executives in the free market. Now, my guess is that this would anger you because you feel these people are paid too much, and that may be true, but it's simply not going to happen.

What will happen is that the company will make cuts at street level first. These people are far more easy to replace than executives, and if they don't like it, they are free to find employment elsewhere. This is just fundamental business economics at its most basic level. So this notion that execs will just take a pay cut to pay for minimum wage people is just not gonna happen.

Unless we do as I said - some kind of government mandate about pay.

So, I hope that answers your question. I'm not making value judgments on how much execs make, I'm just pointing out reality.

So, a question for you: Should the government mandate how much those execs can make? That would take their money and give it to the minimum wage workers with no cost increase to the company, as you said.

.

Wanted to make sure that you knew I saw and answered your question.

Should the government mandate executive wages you ask? NO.

The workers should form themselves a union and strike for higher wages. It is always interesting to see companies have this huge executive pay roll to make when no workers are on the job doing the companies business. Puts lots of stress on management.

Right now the companies all have it going their way. Lots of workers to choose from. Lots of politicians fighting the fight against raising the minimum wage.etc.

But nothing lasts forever. And one day the value of labor will be better appreciated again.

I hope we get a populist for a Presidential candidate sometime in my lifetime.

Hey and Mac I grew up in an industrial city and the executives made it their business to treat their workers fairly. Look up John Patterson of the NCR Company and see how well they treated their employees at one time. Same for many other manufacturing companies.

Seems like if you run a company that actually makes things, the executives better understand the value of labor. Service industry executives seem to think workers are just low wage replacement parts for their benefit.

And finally the government should increase minimum wage laws to at least 10 bucks an hour.

If company executives don't like that tuff shit. Let em find another job. I mean there are so many out there paying 500k a year or so.

There aren't a lot of jobs that pay 500K a year, there are even FEWER executives worth 500K a year. Which is why you find executives in higher levels in their late 60s, 70s and even 80s. There are, though, a LOT of low or semi skilled workers who are worth less than $30,000 a year. Labor can be replaced by other labor and if the worker's don't like it, import labor who will be happy making what the task is worth. Executives cannot be as easily replaced by other executives so the tasks that they perform are much more valuable than the assembly line worker.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A letter to the private sector... on what is fair

We spend trillions protecting your oil fields in the middle east.

We spend trillions protecting your most profitable investments with a patent system. [Do you know how much money it costs to run a patent system? Do you know how much the market begs for and depends upon it? Do you know that this is pure government intervention in the market?]

We spend trillions upon countless trillions giving you an advanced industrial infrastructure - indeed, we make massive public investments in technology so you can profit. [Did you know that everything from containerization to satellite technology came out of the state sector? Do you know what kind of technology came out of the Cold War Defense and NASA programs and was seeded into the private sector? Do you know the kind of profits that have come from satellite technology alone? Do you know the public investment in aerospace technology? Research the subsidies Boeing got from the defense department. So many of our most profitable sectors have been almost wholly dependent on government subsidies and research partnerships]

We use Fed policy to chase money into the stock market so that you and your ventures are well capitalized. We expanded credit so American consumers can keep buying your products.

We wprotect your global trade routes so you can harvest cheap labor and raw materials from unstable parts of the globe. Indeed, we have built an empire of bases so that we can stabilize all the dangerous regions which contain your emerging markets. [Do you know how much money it costs to stabilize/protect the global market system? Do you what the military and administrative costs are of managing an entire global market system? .... so that Walmart can get their products made in Chain, Taiwan and Honduras?]

We subsidize a vast public university system so that you have the most well educated workers in the world.

We build roads so you can bring products and customers to market.

We build energy grids and water plants across the nation. We built the Hoover Dam and invested trillions so that the Colorado River delta to allow the entire Southwest to be inhabited (and thereby support massive commerce . . . for your profitable ventures).

But here is what we ask in exchange. We ask that you admit to your Republican voters how much help you get from government. And one more thing. We did you a big favor back in the 80s, under Reagan. We liberalized trade and made it easier for you to take advantage of ultra-cheap labor in freedom hating nations. And we let you ship millions of solid middle class jobs out of the country. And we dismantled many of the "After market" policies and programs that helped the middle class in order make room for your tax cuts. And you became the wealthiest private sector in world history. You have so much money that you can fund elections and staff government, and destroy any politician who does not vote your way. As a result of you shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets, coupled with dismantling all the postwar programs that boosted middle class purchasing power, Americans have had to borrow more and more money just to survive and buy your products. Consequently the middle class is, in the aggregate, broke - they can no longer make up for the lost wages/benefits with credit. We need to go back to the system we had during the postwar years when you made solid profits but this nation also invested in the middle class . . . by giving them affordable education, health care, and livable wages. After all, we depend on their consumption to keep the domestic economy afloat. But it all starts with you being honest to your Republican voters about how much help you receive . They need to know that we are no longer living in Ayn Rand's Russia where Stalin steals the family pharmacy. To the contrary, the pharmaceutical now owns the government.

Why limit notification to only Republican voters? Or are you implying that Democrat voters are too stupid, ignorant, or just plain wouldn't care? As far as I can tell, liberal/Democrat business owners, CEOs, etc, are equally guilty.