This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[RKMBrown]

Yeah that's it. You got me. I don't want to talk about solutions.

Ok here's your solution which I know you will start bitching about. We raise the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. Will that raise prices? Yes. So be it. Otherwise we will have more and more people relying on the government. That would be worse wouldn't you say?

You are mixing issues and will cause more problems than you solve. You want a raise and you want government to force your employer to give you that raise? I don't know anyone that works for minimum wage, however if you keep raising minimum wage I can say that I would know people who used to work above minimum wage who where demoted from full time pay to part time at the new higher minimum wage because her boss had to give a raise to all his crappy employees and thus had to put everyone that was full time to part time employment with out benefits.

If you want to solve problems you have to think of the repercussions of your changes, and adjust your solution accordingly. Repeating mistakes of the past... well that's just dumb.

I don't understand your logic on this. We have been raising the minimum wage for decades . Why would raising it once more be a complete bust?

We will raise it again. Raising minimum wage, however, solves nothing. All it does is set the low bar for the most useless of employees as getting paid similar to the pay of everyone else in the company. People don't get minimum wage cause they are the best employees in the company.

If you want to improve poverty the way is to switch to hand up systems over hand out systems. Minimum wage is a hand out to the worst employees. It's the same as walking into a class room and giving some a D for showing up and saying we can't let anyone fail.

Break up the monopolies that pay great workers minimum wage so they can pay executives 1000 times the pay of great workers without any say so from the owners of the company. You want more money? Set up a system where the employers have the ability to fire people for incompetency without having to pay them unemployment wages. Set up a system where people are paid based on merit rather than some entitlement system.

 

[dblack]

We will raise it again. Raising minimum wage, however, solves nothing. All it does is set the low bar for the most useless of employees as getting paid similar to the pay of everyone else in the company. People don't get minimum wage cause they are the best employees in the company.

It's actually worse for people who can't get a job at the higher wages. That's the ugliness at the core of laws like this. We're telling people "If you can't convince someone you're worth a decent wage, you're not allowed to work. Go get in a bread line!"

 

[Asclepias]

You want more money? Set up a system where the employers have the ability to fire people for incompetency without having to pay them unemployment wages. Set up a system where people are paid based on merit rather than some entitlement system.

Thats coming sooner than most people know. Some businesses are already adopting this model. They are basically going 100% commision or drastically lowering the base salary and going partial commision.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't give me that. If i were to throw out a percentage, you would have given me the typical conservative bullshit of "well who are you to decide how much wealth rich people control?"

That's an excellent question.
Who are you to decide?
What is the logic behind your suggested proper amount?

THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU EVEN ASK FOR AN AMOUNT?

You said there is a problem
At what number is the problem gone?
Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would it have zero effect? For one thing, big corporations can easily afford a raise in minimum wage. I can't seem them adjusting prices by very much. You are suggesting that the price increase would offset the income increase. What makes you so sure that would be the case? I am not saying it would fix the disparity. I just mean it is a step in the right direction.

If prices go up along with the minimum wage those minimum wage earners are in the same position. If the corporations and small businesses dont raise prices then it would benefit the minimum wage earners. I agree with that. My problem is since small businesses make up a large portion of employment for minimum wage earners they would be affected more than the corporations. They are less equipped to handle a higher cost of doing business and may close thus putting more people out of work.

Ok answer me this: how did businesses deal with previous minimum wage increases? Why would this raise be any different?

Ok answer me this: how did businesses deal with previous minimum wage increases?

They reduced the number of minimum wage, minimum skill workers they employed.

Why would this raise be any different?

It would be no different.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thats coming sooner than most people know. Some businesses are already adopting this model. They are basically going 100% commision or drastically lowering the base salary and going partial commision.

Yeah contracting/1099 is definitely one of the ways a lot of companies are heading for in country employment. Gone are the days of golden parachutes and honoring your employer by sticking with him for decades on end. That's not what is happening over in china though. Over there you get cheap employees, they stay with you for life and the communist leaders don't let the workers job shop or move around.

 

[peach174]

Why would it have zero effect? For one thing, big corporations can easily afford a raise in minimum wage. I can't seem them adjusting prices by very much. You are suggesting that the price increase would offset the income increase. What makes you so sure that would be the case? I am not saying it would fix the disparity. I just mean it is a step in the right direction.

The majority of workers in America do not work for big Corporations.
Statistics tell us, and past history tell us that it doesn't work.
And it harms the poor and fixed income groups greatly and causes more government dependency.

The majority huh? Can you provide evidence of that?

You can look it up just as easy for yourself.
This is from the Census Bureau;
Firms with 1 to 4 employees 3,705,275
Firms with 5 to 9 employees 1,060,250
Firms with 10 to 19 employees 644,842
Firms with 20 to 99 employees 532,391
Firms with 100 to 499 employees 88,586
Firms with 500 employees or more 18,311
Firms with 500 to 749 employees 6,094
Firms with 750 to 999 employees 2,970
Firms with 1,500 to 1,999 employees 1,542
Firms with 2,000 to 2,499 employees 942
Firms with 2,500 to 4,999 employees 1,920
Firms with 5,000 employees or more 1,927
Firms with 5,000 to 9,999 employees 952
Firms with 10,000 employees or more 975

Over 3 million small businesses and 975 very Large Corporations.

 

[Vox]

That's an excellent question.
Who are you to decide?
What is the logic behind your suggested proper amount?

THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU EVEN ASK FOR AN AMOUNT?

You said there is a problem
At what number is the problem gone?
Be specific.

I would add - show the methodology how the number is calculated. And why this particular way.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont know how valid this is but I just found something that says large corporations now employ more minimum wage earners. The last year looked at was 2011 so I don't know if this trended up or down.

Large, Profitable Companies Employ Most Minimum-Wage Earners | The Nation

Even if this is true though only 66% of minimum wage workers would see a real increase provided prices were not raised and these companies wanted to cut into their profits.

 

[MikeK]

So raise the minimum wage. All prices of goods get raised. Then the extra increase in wages goes to pay for the higher prices of goods. They have gained nothing and are still in the same boat.

Having a few extra dollars per hour would go a long way. Prices would not be so high that they couldn't afford the goods. What makes you so sure they couldn't?

Lets put some numbers to this. I pay my employees say $7 an hour to make my widget. I sell my widget for say $15 after expenses I earn a $2 profit. I raise my minimum wage $2 without raising my prices and I just wiped out my profit. Add to that since more people have disposable income my expenses go up because of the law of supply and demand. I am now operating at a loss out of the goodness of my heart. How long can I keep this up?

Your hypothesis lacks the critical factor of projected sales volume.

Your profit margin for the widget depends on how many of them you sell. The more you sell, the greater the margin. If you can't charge more for the widget, and if you don't sell enough of them to exceed the $2 profit margin, and if you can't keep employees at $7 an hour, your business model is untenable (in the U.S.)

From there we move on to the prospect of exported jobs and the need for product import tariffs to preserve our standard of living.

Because there are Ph.D. economists who disagree on whether such innovations as NAFTA are a good thing or not, I can only refer to the comparative circumstances that existed before Clinton imposed that Gordian knot upon us (along with Gramm-Leach-Bliley). I am not an economist but I know our economy was doing a hell of a lot better prior to this tampering with its mechanism.

 

[Asclepias]

Having a few extra dollars per hour would go a long way. Prices would not be so high that they couldn't afford the goods. What makes you so sure they couldn't?

Lets put some numbers to this. I pay my employees say $7 an hour to make my widget. I sell my widget for say $15 after expenses I earn a $2 profit. I raise my minimum wage $2 without raising my prices and I just wiped out my profit. Add to that since more people have disposable income my expenses go up because of the law of supply and demand. I am now operating at a loss out of the goodness of my heart. How long can I keep this up?

Your hypothesis lacks the critical factor of projected sales volume.

Your profit margin for the widget depends on how many of them you sell. The more you sell, the greater the margin. If you can't charge more for the widget, and if you don't sell enough of them to exceed the $2 profit margin, and if you can't keep employees at $7 an hour, your business model is untenable (in the U.S.)

From there we move on to the prospect of exported jobs and the need for product import tariffs to preserve our standard of living.

Because there are Ph.D. economists who disagree on whether such innovations as NAFTA are a good thing or not, I can only refer to the comparative circumstances that existed before Clinton imposed that Gordian knot upon us (along with Gramm-Leach-Bliley). I am not an economist but I know our economy was doing a hell of a lot better prior to this tampering with its mechanism.

Chance for me to learn something. How does projected sales volume lower the cost of making my widget?

 

[RKMBrown]

Lets put some numbers to this. I pay my employees say $7 an hour to make my widget. I sell my widget for say $15 after expenses I earn a $2 profit. I raise my minimum wage $2 without raising my prices and I just wiped out my profit. Add to that since more people have disposable income my expenses go up because of the law of supply and demand. I am now operating at a loss out of the goodness of my heart. How long can I keep this up?

Your hypothesis lacks the critical factor of projected sales volume.

Your profit margin for the widget depends on how many of them you sell. The more you sell, the greater the margin. If you can't charge more for the widget, and if you don't sell enough of them to exceed the $2 profit margin, and if you can't keep employees at $7 an hour, your business model is untenable (in the U.S.)

From there we move on to the prospect of exported jobs and the need for product import tariffs to preserve our standard of living.

Because there are Ph.D. economists who disagree on whether such innovations as NAFTA are a good thing or not, I can only refer to the comparative circumstances that existed before Clinton imposed that Gordian knot upon us (along with Gramm-Leach-Bliley). I am not an economist but I know our economy was doing a hell of a lot better prior to this tampering with its mechanism.

Chance for me to learn something. How does projected sales volume lower the cost of making my widget?

The same way projected sales volume raises the cost of making your widget.

 

[Asclepias]

Your hypothesis lacks the critical factor of projected sales volume.

Your profit margin for the widget depends on how many of them you sell. The more you sell, the greater the margin. If you can't charge more for the widget, and if you don't sell enough of them to exceed the $2 profit margin, and if you can't keep employees at $7 an hour, your business model is untenable (in the U.S.)

From there we move on to the prospect of exported jobs and the need for product import tariffs to preserve our standard of living.

Because there are Ph.D. economists who disagree on whether such innovations as NAFTA are a good thing or not, I can only refer to the comparative circumstances that existed before Clinton imposed that Gordian knot upon us (along with Gramm-Leach-Bliley). I am not an economist but I know our economy was doing a hell of a lot better prior to this tampering with its mechanism.

Chance for me to learn something. How does projected sales volume lower the cost of making my widget?

The same way projected sales volume raises the cost of making your widget.

Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Having a few extra dollars per hour would go a long way. Prices would not be so high that they couldn't afford the goods. What makes you so sure they couldn't?

Lets put some numbers to this. I pay my employees say $7 an hour to make my widget. I sell my widget for say $15 after expenses I earn a $2 profit. I raise my minimum wage $2 without raising my prices and I just wiped out my profit. Add to that since more people have disposable income my expenses go up because of the law of supply and demand. I am now operating at a loss out of the goodness of my heart. How long can I keep this up?

Your hypothesis lacks the critical factor of projected sales volume.

Your profit margin for the widget depends on how many of them you sell. The more you sell, the greater the margin. If you can't charge more for the widget, and if you don't sell enough of them to exceed the $2 profit margin, and if you can't keep employees at $7 an hour, your business model is untenable (in the U.S.)

From there we move on to the prospect of exported jobs and the need for product import tariffs to preserve our standard of living.

Because there are Ph.D. economists who disagree on whether such innovations as NAFTA are a good thing or not, I can only refer to the comparative circumstances that existed before Clinton imposed that Gordian knot upon us (along with Gramm-Leach-Bliley). I am not an economist but I know our economy was doing a hell of a lot better prior to this tampering with its mechanism.

If you can't charge more for the widget, and if you don't sell enough of them to exceed the $2 profit margin, and if you can't keep employees at $7 an hour, your business model is untenable (in the U.S.)

It's true, a minimum wage hike will force businesses on the bubble to shut down.
Hard to claim a wage hike helped the newly unemployed workers.

I am not an economist but I know our economy was doing a hell of a lot better prior to this tampering with its mechanism.

Before which tampering? NAFTA or Gramm-Leach-Bliley?

 

[RKMBrown]

Chance for me to learn something. How does projected sales volume lower the cost of making my widget?

The same way projected sales volume raises the cost of making your widget.

Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

Think in terms of a spreadsheet

cost of materials for item (* items projected)+
cost of labor for item (* items projected) +
basic cost of doing business = cost of items

now put projected sales as two numbers
high projected 1000
low projected 500
now divide cost by projection for each projected number. Now divide the total cost by items. You'll note the more you sell the lower the impact of basic cost of doing business.
Now set a price to make a profit. You'll note you can sell items for less if you sell more product.

Now increase the cost of labor and see what happens to the price you need to make the same profit. Guess what, unless you own a monopoly people will buy less of your product when it is more expensive. This is why Chinese labor is used to build high volume low margin items.

 

[Asclepias]

The same way projected sales volume raises the cost of making your widget.

Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

Think in terms of a spreadsheet

cost of materials for item (* items projected)+
cost of labor for item (* items projected) +
basic cost of doing business = cost of items

now put projected sales as two numbers
high projected 1000
low projected 500
now divide cost by projection for each projected number. Now divide the total cost by items. You'll note the more you sell the lower the impact of basic cost of doing business.
Now set a price to make a profit. You'll note you can sell items for less if you sell more product.

Now increase the cost of labor and see what happens to the price you need to make the same profit.

OK I got it. Thanks

 

[JoeNormal]

I wish I had a dollar for every time a someone told me a thing can't be done. Wealth is not a limited resource. There is no such thing as a fixed amount of wealth to go around. It does not work that way. You may not think yourself capable of producing a million in goods but that does not mean everyone is like you.

I think you've spent so much time in the software world, you've forgotten that there are resources that are finite. Energy, water, arable land are the biggies. And that doesn't cover the artificial scarcities like medical care, etc.

So just out of curiosity, how do you think everyone could become a millionaire?

Huh? Do you have any idea how much energy is available for us use? Energy, is for all intents and purposes, infinite. Just how much energy do you think you need to be rich these days? We live on a planet that is covered with water, selling me on water scarcity isn't gonna work. Arable land scarcity, has been solved to a large degree with hydroponics and green houses.

Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources. Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation. Better minds than yours have met with only modest success in these areas.

As for water, aquifers are being depleted or contaminated by fracking, rivers have become so polluted that they're useless and due to climate change, precipitation in many cases doesn't fall where it's needed.

Everything you've mentioned ignores the 'commodity' aspect of resources.

How do I think everyone could become a millionaire? First each person is an individual, what works for one person does not work for others. Second, not everyone wants to be a millionaire, let alone do the work to get there. As to particular ways, you have just pointed out a few needs of the people. Addressing needs of the people is usually a good way to get rich.

Here again, thinking that everybody could become a millionare ignores the commodity aspect of the labor market. The bottom rung of the labor ladder is used as a 'force multiplier' for the upper tiers.

I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty. I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think you've spent so much time in the software world, you've forgotten that there are resources that are finite. Energy, water, arable land are the biggies. And that doesn't cover the artificial scarcities like medical care, etc.

So just out of curiosity, how do you think everyone could become a millionaire?

Huh? Do you have any idea how much energy is available for us use? Energy, is for all intents and purposes, infinite. Just how much energy do you think you need to be rich these days? We live on a planet that is covered with water, selling me on water scarcity isn't gonna work. Arable land scarcity, has been solved to a large degree with hydroponics and green houses.

Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources. Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation. Better minds than yours have met with only modest success in these areas.

As for water, aquifers are being depleted or contaminated by fracking, rivers have become so polluted that they're useless and due to climate change, precipitation in many cases doesn't fall where it's needed.

Everything you've mentioned ignores the 'commodity' aspect of resources.

How do I think everyone could become a millionaire? First each person is an individual, what works for one person does not work for others. Second, not everyone wants to be a millionaire, let alone do the work to get there. As to particular ways, you have just pointed out a few needs of the people. Addressing needs of the people is usually a good way to get rich.

Here again, thinking that everybody could become a millionare ignores the commodity aspect of the labor market. The bottom rung of the labor ladder is used as a 'force multiplier' for the upper tiers.

I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty. I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no icrease in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.

Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.

Many new millionaires did just that with shale gas.

 

[Stephanie]

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.

I keep asking what we should do about it. Do you have a solution?

Yes I do. We raise the minimum wage to at least $9.00 an hour.

that simple huh? for ever person to get a raise in minimum wage the company will have to let people go so his business doesn't LOSE money over the bright ideas of the Democrat..or the next bright suggestion from you will have the government FORCE business to keep people..they don't need a PROFIT anyway, right

gawd do any or understand how a business or company is run, you think just raise that minimum wage and the liberal utopia is on it's way

 

[JoeNormal]

Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.

Many new millionaires did just that with shale gas.

Unfortunately, I think it's going to be an environmental disaster.